WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 813

Voter registration; regular periodic review of registration records.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Aaron Rouse

SB 813 allows videorecorded statements from certain vulnerable victims to be admitted as evidence in pretrial and trial, with stricter disclosure safeguards and required forensic i

Senate sustained Governor's veto
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 813

SB 813 — Recorded witness statements (amends MCL 600.2163a)

Status: Introduced Feb 21, 2025; referred to second reading. (Subject areas: child protection; criminal procedure — evidence, preliminary examination, pretrial.)

Summary
SB 813 revises Michigan’s rules governing when and how videorecorded witness statements from certain vulnerable alleged victims may be taken, preserved, disclosed, and used in criminal proceedings (amending MCL 600.2163a). The bill expands circumstances in which such recordings may substitute for live testimony, strengthens procedural protections around disclosure, requires use of established forensic interview protocols, and increases penalties for unauthorized release.

Key provisions and changes
- Who the rule applies to: alleged victims who are (a) under 16 years old, (b) age 16+ with a developmental disability, or (c) vulnerable adults (per existing statutory definitions), and only for specified sexual‑abuse, child‑abuse, vulnerable‑adult, and certain assaultive offenses listed in the statute.

  • Broader admissibility:

    • Videorecorded statements may be admitted as evidence in pretrial proceedings (including preliminary examinations) and may be admitted at trial for impeachment (the bill retains that trial admission must comply with evidence rules and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause).
    • Recordings may also be used for sentencing considerations and to support pleas (no contest / guilty).

  • Forensic interview requirements:

    • Videorecorded interviews must follow the Forensic Interview Protocols adopted under the Child Protection Law (section 8) and be retained under county protocols.

  • Disclosure to defense and protective conditions:

    • Custodians (investigating law enforcement, prosecuting attorney, Attorney General, or county‑protocol designees) may release recordings to prosecution and related agencies; the bill tightens defense access rules by requiring a court order for release of copies and by specifying that orders must, at minimum, name who may view the recording, state return deadlines, and state the reason for release. Committee language requires that pro se defendants be provided a transcript (committee reports indicate delivery at least 10 days before trial or pretrial); represented defendants continue to have access through counsel subject to protective conditions.
    • The bill deletes certain prior recording-formalities (identifying every person present and whether they were present for the entire recording).

  • Backup witness testimony:

    • If a recording is unavailable or fails to play, a forensic interviewer or other witness present at the interview may testify about its content if the court finds that testimony otherwise admissible.

  • Custody/retention and DHHS role:

    • The bill clarifies that retention is governed by county protocols and (in reported versions) removes the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) from the statutory definition of “custodian” or relieves DHHS of storage responsibility.

  • Increased criminal penalty for unauthorized disclosure:

    • The maximum misdemeanor penalty for intentionally releasing a videorecorded statement in violation of the statute is increased (committee and legislative summaries report raising the maximum jail term from 93 days to up to 1 year and increasing the maximum fine — committee summaries reference up to $2,500).

Who is affected
- Vulnerable alleged victims (children, developmentally disabled persons, vulnerable adults): reduced need to testify live in some settings.
- Defendants, particularly pro se defendants: access changed (transcript access for pro se; recordings subject to court protective orders).
- Prosecutors, law enforcement, county child‑protection teams and forensic interviewers: new procedural, retention, and protocol requirements.
- DHHS: statutory custodial/retention role is reduced in reported versions.
- Courts: additional duties on disclosure orders and balancing confrontation‑clause considerations.

Procedural/timing notes and fiscal impact
- Effective date in committee reports: 180 days after enactment.
- Fiscal impact: nonpartisan analyses describe an indeterminate fiscal effect. Increasing misdemeanor maximums could raise local incarceration and supervision costs; increased fines could raise revenue (often earmarked for law libraries). Exact impact depends on prosecutorial practices and number of prosecutions under the enhanced penalty.

Balance and legal limits
- Admissions at trial remain subject to evidence rules and the U.S. Sixth Amendment confrontation requirements; courts retain discretion to impose protective conditions on disclosure and to evaluate necessity and admissibility.

For the statutory text: the bill amends MCL 600.2163a (Revised Judicature Act of 1961).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.