OIDV Project Of Michigan - Officer Involved Domestic Violence Project Of Michigan

Judge refuses new trial for Hackel
The Morning Sun
By SUSAN FIELD Clare Managing Editor
PUBLISHED: Friday, September 21, 2007 http://www.themorningsun.com/stories/092107/loc_trial.shtml

A federal judge has refused to accept a judge magistrate's recommendation that could have led to a new trial for a former downstate sheriff convicted of rape in Isabella County.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen in Detroit had recommended that former Macomb County Sheriff William Harry Hackel be given a hearing to determine whether jurors might have been tainted but U. S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds rejected that Wednesday.

Hackel was convicted of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in April 2000 for raping a then 25-year-old woman during a conference at the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort.

During the trial, according to court documents, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Police offered a job as a corrections officer and dispatcher to one of the jurors. Tribal police had investigated the allegation of rape.

Isabella County Chief Judge Paul Chamberlain dismissed the juror as soon as Isabella County Prosecutor Larry Burdick and defense attorneys became aware of the job offer and Hackel's attorneys appeared to agree that the action was adequate.

Hackel, who served three years in prison, later argued that Chamberlain should have conducted a hearing with all jurors to determine if they had been tainted because the juror told another on the panel about the job offer.

Hackel, in both his federal and state appeals, demanded that full-blown hearing.

The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected that argument. But Whalen, in the federal case that Hackel filed when he was still in prison, said Chamberlain should have held that hearing.

Edmunds, however, agreed with the state court.

In a 10-page order issued Wednesday, Edmunds ruled that Chamberlain had done an adequate job when he questioned the single juror and dismissed him.

Hackel's constitutional right to an impartial jury was not violated, and "was not contrary to and did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court."

Chamberlain conducted a "Remmer" hearing during the trial with Burdick, defense attorneys James Howarth and Daniel Waller, and the juror hired by tribal police.

After questioning the juror, Chamberlain dismissed him, and the defense attorneys complimented the judge, who indicated he did not find that there had been wrongdoing on the part of either tribal police -- who notified Burdick when they learned that a potential employee was on the jury -- or the prosecutor's office, according to court documents.

Chamberlain described the scenario as "ill advised at best, and at worst has the appearance of jury tampering."

Edmunds ruled that the Michigan Court of Appeals had "correctly observed that the trial court did conduct an investigation concerning the job offer" and that "all interested parties participated."

Edmunds also said that defense attorneys "were given ample opportunity to show that actual juror bias on the part of jurors other than" the juror who was offered the job.

"The Michigan Court of Appeals properly reviewed the record, concluding that under the facts presented here that there was no plain error," Edmunds wrote in the ruling.

After the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld Hackel's conviction, the Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal, according to court documents.

Sun Staff Writer Mark Ranzenberger contributed to this report.

No new trial for former sheriff
The Saginaw News
Posted by LaNia Coleman
September 20, 2007 - 23:26PM
http://blog.mlive.com/saginawnews/2007/09/no_new_trial_for_fomer_sheriff.html

A federal judge has ruled that a former sheriff received a fair trial the first time.

U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds on Wednesday overturned an earlier order for hearings on possible jury tampering in the case against former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen on Aug. 17 ordered Isabella County Chief Trial Judge Paul H. Chamberlain to conduct the hearings to determine whether Hackel received a fair trial on charges of sexual assault.

Hackel alleged jury tampering in the 2000 case, which sent him to prison.

Ex-sheriff loses new trial bid
U.S. judge rules against Macomb's William Hackel on jury tampering issue.
The Detroit News
Paul Egan
Thursday, September 20, 2007

A federal judge in Detroit on Wednesday shot down former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel's latest bid for a new trial on his sexual assault conviction.

U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds overturned a federal magistrate judge's recommendation that the Isabella County Circuit Court grant Hackel a hearing on whether the jury at his 2000 trial was tainted.

Edmunds ruled the jury tampering issue had already been considered and rejected by the Michigan Court of Appeals and did not need to be heard again.

Hackel, 65, the father of current Sheriff Mark Hackel, was convicted of third-degree sexual assault for raping a 25-year-old acquaintance at a 1999 law enforcement conference at the Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort in Mount Pleasant.

Hackel admitted having sex with the woman but claimed it was consensual. He was released from prison in2003.

In 2004, Hackel went to federal court seeking a new trial.Among other issues, Hackel said the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Police, which investigated the incident, offered a juror a job during the trial.

The juror was dismissed, but Hackel argued the juror may have tainted those left on the panel.

On Aug. 17, U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen recommended that Hackel be granted a hearing on that issue. But Edmunds ruled Wednesday that the Michigan Court of Appeals considered the issue in 2002 and found that Hackel's right to an impartial jury had not been violated.

Hackel's attorney, Terence Page, could not be reached for comment.

Former Sheriff Denied New Trial
WNEM News 5
POSTED: 4:41 pm EDT September 20, 2007
UPDATED: 4:57 pm EDT September 20, 2007
http://www.wnem.com/news/14161269/detail.html

SAGINAW, Mich. -- A former Macomb County sheriff convicted of rape in Isabella County has been denied a new trial.

William Hackel was convicted on two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in the 1999 rape of a 25-year-old at the Michigan Sheriffs Association conference at the Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort.

A federal judge in Detroit then recommended a hearing to determine whether jurors might have been tainted, after one was offered a job as a corrections officer with the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Police.

It was tribal police that investigated the original complaint, but the claim was rejected Wednesday. Hackel served three years in jail.

Judge Grants Hearing In 7-Year-Old Hackel Case
Click On Detroit
POSTED: 3:23 pm EDT August 21, 2007
UPDATED: 11:27 am EDT August 22, 2007 http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/13942246/detail.html

Seven years ago, former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel was convicted of sexual assault in Isabella County.

Hackel was charged with raping a woman while at the Soaring Eagle Casino, but Hackel claimed the sex was consensual.

Now, a federal magistrate granted a hearing on claims of jury tampering. One of the jurors was dismissed.

During the trial, Saginaw Chippewa tribal police made a job offer to one of the jurors.

Prosecutor Burdick and Chamberlain admitted in court that the situation was worrisome, and the judge indicated his level of concern by dismissing Morden, Griem had argued.

Griem had argued that the judge "acknowledged the prejudice" created by the job offer "without curing it" by declaring a mistrial and ordering a new trial.

Chamberlain twice in court said the job offer had "an appearance of jury tampering," according to Griem's brief.

The judge also "failed to determine whether other jurors were influenced by Morden after he was tainted," Griem said in the brief.

Hackel served as sheriff for 23 years. His son, Mark, won the post in fall 2000 and was re-elected in 2004.

Hackel's rape trial was possibly tainted
Juror's job offer leads federal judge to grant hearing on new trial
Macomb Daily
By Jameson Cook
Macomb Daily Staff Writer
PUBLISHED: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 http://www.macombdaily.com/stories/082107/loc_20070821004.shtml

A judge's order for former Macomb County Sheriff William Hackel to receive a hearing for a possible new trial is a decision long awaited by Hackel's former appellate attorney.

David Griem, who represented Hackel in his appeal of his 2000 rape conviction, said Monday he is glad Hackel will get the court hearing because he still believes Hackel was wrongly convicted and should have won a retrial.

"The only person who got raped in the Bill Hackel case was Bill Hackel," Griem said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen's last week reportedly ordered a hearing within 90 days about whether the jury that convicted Hackel was tainted because of a juror being offered a job during the trial with the Tribal Police of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, which investigated the case, and the juror talking about it to another juror.

Whalen reportedly indicated that the juror's situation was not adequately probed by the trial judge, Judge Paul Chamberlain of Isabella County Circuit Court in Mount Pleasant.

The juror, Dan Morden, was offered the job on the second day of testimony during the 2-week trial, and accepted it two days later. But Isabella County Prosecutor Larry Burdick did not learn about it until April 25, when he informed Judge Chamberlain.

Morden sat in the trial for several days and told another juror about the job offer, according to appellate documents in the original appeal in the state courts. Chamberlain then dismissed him, leaving the jury with its minimum level of 12. One other juror had been dismissed previously.

Hackel's federal appellate attorney, Terence Page, could not be reached Monday for comment.

Hackel, now 66, was convicted April 27, 2000, of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct for acts on a 25-year-old woman in October 1999 in a hotel room at the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort in Mount Pleasant, on the Saginaw Chippewa reservation. He was sentenced to three to 15 years in prison and was released in 2003after serving three years.

The incident occurred while Hackel was attending a conference staged by the Michigan Sheriffs Association, for which the victim worked.

Hackel, who was married, argued the sex was consensual.

In Hackel's state appeal, the Court of Appeals in December 2002 criticized his defense attorney in the trial, James Howarth, for failing to seek a mistrial because of Morden's activities.

Howarth at the time defended his decision, saying a new trial could have favored the prosecution and would have further increased Hackel's legal expenses, although he did admit one time before that not seeking the mistrial may have been a mistake.

Griem said he had made the same argument Page did regarding the juror -- along with other arguments -- in his appeal, but lost in the state Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court.

In his appeal, Griem had argued that Morden telling a fellow juror tainted the case beyond repair.

"He (Morden) told her he was probably getting the job but claimed not to have discussed how it might impact the case," Griem says in his brief.

Prosecutor Burdick and Chamberlain admitted in court that the situation was worrisome, and the judge indicated his level of concern by dismissing Morden, Griem had argued.

Griem had argued that the judge "acknowledged the prejudice" created by the job offer "without curing it" by declaring a mistrial and ordering a new trial.

Chamberlain twice in court said the job offer had "an appearance of jury tampering," according to Griem's brief.

The judge also "failed to determine whether other jurors were influenced by Morden after he was tainted," Griem said in the brief.

Hackel served as sheriff for 23 years. His son, Mark, won the post in fall 2000 and was re-elected in 2004.

Monday, September 17, 2007

09172007 - Former Officer Phillip Bal - Appeal Filed - COA 280601 - Iron Mountain PD

Also See:

1995 - Officer Phillip Bal - CSC allegation - Iron Mountain PD

04012004 - Officer Phillip Bal - Home invasion and CSC - Iron Mountain PD

04012005 - Officer Phillip Bal - CSC - Iron Mountain PD

04212006 - Officer Phillip Bal - CSC - Iron Mountain PD

04222006 - Officer Phillip Bal - Suspended - Iron Mountain PD

07112006 - Officer Phillip Bal - Terminated - Iron Mountain PD

07182007 - Former Officer Phillip Bal - Sentenced [April 01, 2004 CSC/Home Invasion Charges] - Iron Mountain PD

08152007 - Former Officer Phillip Bal - Appeal Filed - COA 280009 - Iron Mountain PD

09172007 - Former Officer Phillip Bal - Appeal Filed - COA 280601 - Iron Mountain PD

10182007 - Former Officer Phillip Bal - COA Appeal 280009 - Dismissed - Iron Mountain PD

11082007 - Former Officer Phillip Bal - LE license revoked - Iron Mountain PD

08282008 - Former Officer Phillip Bal - Charges dismissed [Aurora WI. April 2005 charges] - Iron Mountain PD

09232008 - Former Officer Phillip Bal - Appeal COA 280601 - OPINION - Conviction Affirmed - Iron Mountain PD

05242020 - Former Officer Phillip Bal - Released From Prison - Iron Mountain PD

05242020 - Former Officer Phillip Bal - Registered Sex Offender - Iron Mountain PD

On September 17, 2007 Phillip Bal filed an appeal on his July 2007 CSC and home invasion convictions. His conviction was upheld.

09172007--Phillip-Bal--Appeal-Filed--COA-280601

09232008--Phillip-Bal--Appeal--Opinion--Conviction-Affirmed

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v

PHILLIP GREGORY BAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Saad, C.J., and Sawyer and Beckering, JJ. PER CURIAM.
UNPUBLISHED
September 23, 2008
No. 280601
LC No. 06-003660-FC
Dickinson Circuit Court

A jury convicted defendant of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b(l)(c), and first-degree home invasion., MCL 750.110a(2)(b). The trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent prison terms of 11 to 20 years for each conviction. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Defendant contends that the prosecutor presented insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, or alternatively, that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.

To evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could convict defendant on every element of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

People v Perrella, 424 Mich 221, 268-270; 380 NW2d 11 (1985); see also People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354, 368; 285 NW2d 284 (1979). The resolution of credibility disputes is within the exclusive province of the trier of fact People v Vaughn, 186 Mich App 376, 380; 465 NW2d 365 (1990).

Conversely, a new trial may be granted where the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, but only when the evidence preponderates so heavily against the verdict that a serious miscarriage of justice would result if the verdict is allowed to stand. People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 635, 642; 576 NW2d 129 (1998). Absent exceptional circumstances, issues of witness credibility are for the jury, and the trial court may not substitute its view of a witness's credibility for the constitutionally guaranteed jury determination of the credibility of witnesses. Id. at 642, 647. This Court "review[s] for abuse of discretion a trial court's grant or denial of a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence." People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 232; 749 NW2d 272 (2008), Iv pending.

Here, the victim's testimony established that defendant entered her home without permission, while the victim and her children were present and that he sexually penetrated her without her consent. Thus, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence is sufficient to enable the jury to find that the prosecutor proved all the elements of first-degree CSC, MCL 750.520b(l)(cX and first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.1IOa(2)(b) beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to defendant's argument on appeal, the victim's credibility cannot be considered in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence.

With respect to defendant's claim challenging the great weight of the evidence, defendant has failed to show that the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict, or that the victim's testimony was impeached to the extent that it was deprived of all probative value that the jury could not believe it. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motion for a new trial based on the great weight of the evidence.

II. Other Acts Evidence
Defendant also maintains, erroneously, that the trial court erred because it permitted two witnesses to testify regarding other bad acts allegedly committed by defendant against them.

A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 550; 581 NW2d 654 (1998).

The prosecutor offered the testimony of two women to show that the charged sexual offense was part of a common scheme or plan in committing acts of forced sexual contact. This is a proper, noncharacter purpose under MRE 404(b)(l). See People v Drohan, 264 Mich App 77, 85-87; 689 NW2d 750 (2004). Like the charged offense in this case, the other incidents involved defendant approaching women—whom he had met or known previously—in bars, making sexual remarks toward them, pushing them against a wall, and then making or attempting forced sexual contact against their will. In each case, defendant also attempted to find out where the women lived in order to continue his sexual pursuit. The other incidents were sufficiently similar to the charged offense to support an inference that defendant committed the charged offense using the same design, method, or plan that he used in the uncharged acts. People- v Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich 43, 56-57, 60; 614 NW2d 888 (2000); Drohan, supra at 86-87. This evidence is also relevant to show defendant's intent, and to disprove his defenses such as the victim's alleged consent or misunderstanding.*1 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the evidence at trial.

III. Expert Testimony
Defendant complains that the trial court erred by allowing a limited license social worker to testify" concerning delays in reporting a sexual assault. In Gilbert v Daimler Chrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749, 780 n 46; 685 NW2d 391 (2004), our Supreme Court adopted the requirements of Dauber t v Men ell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579; 113 S Ct 2786; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993), with regard to the reliability of expert testimony. Under Daubert and MRE 702, a trial court has an obligation to evaluate the reliability of expert testimony before allowing its admissibility, i.e., to determine "whether the opinion is rationally derived from a sound foundation," Linger, supra at 217 (citations omitted), but "a party may waive any claim of error by failing to call this gatekeeping obligation to the court's attention." Craig v Oakwood Hosp, 471 Mich 67, 82; 684NW2d 296 (2004).

Here, though defendant objected to the expert testimony at trial, he did not raise the issue of whether the evidence was reliable within the meaning of MRE 702.

Rather, defendant argued that expert testimony was not necessary, that the witness's opinions were based on the facts of this case rather than independent studies, and that the witness was effectively vouching for the victim's credibility. Thus, defendant waived any issue concerning whether the trial court properly carried out its gatekeeping function under MRE 702.

Nonetheless, the record discloses that the witness is sufficiently qualified as an expert by her education and experience in counseling sexual assault victims, and her testimony is admissible to explain behavior that a jury might otherwise misinterpret. People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 500-502; 596 NW2d 607 (1999); People v Peterson, 450 Mich 349, 352-353; 537 NW2d 857 (1995), amended 450 Mich 1212 (1995); People v Daoust, 228 Mich App 1, 9-11; 577 NW2d 179 (1998); People v Wilson, 194 Mich App 599, 604-605; 487 NW2d 822 (1992). There is no reason to believe that she failed to reliably apply principles and methods governing therapeutic observations, such that her conclusions could be deemed unreliable.

IV. Evidence of the Victim's Conduct

Defendant asserts that the trial court erred by excluding evidence concerning the victim's behavior on the night of the offense. The rape-shield statute, MCL 750.520J, "bars, with two narrow exceptions, evidence of all sexual activity by the complainant not incident to the alleged rape^" People v Adair, 452 Mich 473, 478; 550 NW2d 505 (1996) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in the original). '"A complainant's sexual history with others is generally irrelevant with respect to the alleged sexual assault by the defendant." Id. at 481. "More importantly, a witness5 sexual history is usually irrelevant as impeachment evidence because it has no bearing on [her] character for truthfulness." Id.

Here, defendant sought to introduce evidence of the victim's sexual flirtations with another man to show that "she was a bit loose that night at this party" and that *this spills over to [defendant's] contact with her as well." In People v Ivers, 459 Mich 320, 328-329: 587 NW2d 10 (1998), our Supreme Court held that sexual statements that "do not amount to or reference specific conduct" are not excluded by the rape-shield statute. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, here, the flattering statements the victim allegedly made to the other man—that he was attractive and in good shape for his age—would not be excluded by the rape-shield statute. However, the trial court did not err in finding that the victim's flirtatious statements to the other man were not relevant to her credibility, or to show that she consented to sexual activity with defendant. Thus, the trial court did not err in excluding the statements.

Defendant also proffered evidence that the victim rubbed the other man's bare chest and was "hitting on [him]." This evidence involved the victim's sexual "conduct," not simply her statements. Further, the evidence does not involve sexual conduct with defendant, nor was it offered to show the origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease. Accordingly, the evidence is barred by the rape-shield statute, and is not covered by either of its exceptions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding it.

V. Sentence

Defendant claims that the trial court erred in its scoring of offense variables ("OV") 4, 10, and I3,2

Points should be scored for OV 4. MCL 777.34, based on the psychological injury to the victim. In her impact statement, the victim described the effects of the sexual assault and explained that she obtained counseling. The victim's counselor also explained that the counseling was primarily related to issues involving the sexual assault. In light of this information, the trial court correctly scored OV 4 at ten points.

With respect to OV 10, MCL 777.40 (exploitation of a vulnerable victim), the evidence showed that defendant is six feet, four inches tall, weighs approximately 290 pounds, and is trained as a police officer. The victim testified that defendant was able to use his size and strength to overpower her. This evidence supports the trial court's five-point score for OV 10.

OV 13, MCL 777.43. relates to a continuing pattern of criminal behavior. The evidence of defendant's assaults against two other women showed that the present offense is part of a pattern of felonious activity involving at least three crimes against a person, committed during a time span of less than five years.3
Defendant also says that he should not have been sentenced near the high end of the sentencing guidelines range of 81 to 135 months. A minimum sentence falling within the guidelines range '"shall" be affirmed on appeal unless the guidelines were misscored or the court relied on inaccurate information. MCL 769.34(10); Libbetl, supra at 363-364. Because defendant's 11-year minimum sentence falls within the guidelines range and defendant has not established a scoring error or shown that the court relied on inaccurate information at sentencing, we affirm his sentence.

2 Application of the legislative sentencing guidelines is a question of law to be reviewed de novo on appeal. People v Libbett, 251 Mich App 353, 365; 650 NW2d 407 (2002). t-A sentencing court has discretion in determining the number of points to be scored, provided that evidence of record adequately supports a particular score." People v Hornsby, 251 Mich App 462, 468; 650 NW2d 700 (2002). This Court reviews a trial court's scoring decisions to determine whether the court properly exercised its discretion and whether the record evidence adequately supports a particular score. People vMcLaughlin, 258 Mich App 635, 671; 672NW2d 860 (2003).

' To the extent defendant takes issue with the fairness or wisdom of the statute, his arguments must be addressed to the Legislature. See Oakland Co Bd of Co Rd Comm 'rs v Michigan Prop & Cos Guaranty Ass X 456 Mich 590, 613; 575 NW2d 751 (1998); see also People v Lee, 233 Mich App 403,408; 592 NW2d 779 (1999).

VI. Polygraph Examination

Defendant argues that the prosecutor violated his right to a polygraph examination under MCL 776.21(5). The record shows that, though defendant requested a polygraph examination, defendant either insisted on dismissal of the charges against him if he passed the test, or, as defendant asserts, he refused to answer questions concerning his alleged assaults against two other women. Clearly, defendant is not entitled to impose conditions on how the examination is to be conducted. People v Manser, 250 Mich App 21, 31-32; 645 NW2d 65 (2002). Thus, by insisting on preconditions, defendant refused to take the polygraph examination, the police did not refuse to make one available. Therefore, defendant's rights under the statute were not violated.

Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Jane M. Beckering

*1 The evidence, while damaging, was not unfairly prejudicial or inflammatory, Sabin, supra at 55-56, and any prejudicial effect was minimized by the trial court's cautionary instruction.

Here's a look at what we're working on for tonight's news
Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 2:58 p.m.
WLUC TV6
http://wluctv6.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=197244

Three people are in custody and one is being sought in an armed robbery in Ishpeming. It happened last week. The suspects allegedly broke into a home stealing cash and drugs. The story tonight on your TV6 Early News.

It's the Fourth Wednesday Count for Michigan's K-12 schools. Tonight on your TV6 Early News, enrollment numbers for some U.P. school districts and what those numbers mean for the district's future.

An Upper Michigan Community Action Agency is dropping some of its services due to a lack of funding. The story from Delta County tonight on your TV6 Early News.

The appeal is in on Philip Bal. He's the former police officer charged with rape. On your TV6 News Tonight, the court's decision.

A survey is being done in Negaunee on the Iron Ore Heritage Trail. On your TV6 News Tonight what city and trail officials are hoping to gain from the survey.

In your Up Close Report, a look at this year's apple harvest. TV6's Iron Mountain Kingsford Bureau reporter Pooja Lodhia looks at why one farm operation has been able to bring in a bumper crop. That's on your TV6 News Tonight.

In your Entertainment Report, TV6's Natalie Zimmermann reports on the band Hozz and their acoustic sound. That's on your TV6 News Tonight.