# People v. Mateo

> Michigan Supreme Court · July 31, 1996 · 453 Mich. 203

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568468

## Case

- **Full name:** People v. Mateo
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 31, 1996
- **Citations:** 453 Mich. 203; 551 N.W.2d 891
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Weaver
- **Judges:** Cavanagh, Brickley, Riley, Mallett, Weaver, Boyle
- **Cited by:** 88 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568468

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that “for some types of error, such as the erroneous admission . . . of evidence, overwhelming evidence of guilt will ordinarily lead to the conclusion that the error was harmless”
- stating that reversal is only required if the error was prejudicial

## Opinion text

Weaver, J.
(concurring). I have signed Justice Boyle’s opinion because I believe that it is essential for this Court to establish a clear, workable standard of review for preserved, nonconstitutional error.
I write separately to state my position that MCL 769.26; MSA 28.1096 has established a presumption that this error is harmless. MCL 769.26; MSA 28.1096 provides that a judgment shall not be overturned “unless in the opinion of the court, after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear *222 that the error complained of has residted in a miscarriage of justice.” Thus, I would place the burden of showing why the judgment should be overturned on the defendant. This approach is consistent with the rule that after conviction a defendant is no longer presumed innocent. People v Fritch, 161 Mich 111, 115 ; 125 NW 785 (1910).
This allocation of the burden of proof has been recognized by our Courts in the past:
After a man has been convicted, the presumption of innocence, of which so much is made in our practice, attends him no longer. He has been convicted by a jury, and he has the burden of convincing . . . that the record upon which he stands convicted is open to serious question .... [Id. at 115:]
After lawful conviction a defendant is no longer presumed innocent. He then has the burden of satisfying the reviewing court that the record upon which he was convicted discloses reversible error. [People v Rowell, 14 Mich App 190, 196 ; 165 NW2d 423 (1968).]
When a defendant has pleaded guilty and appeals arguing that “the facts elicited from defendant at the arraignment [do not] support a finding of guilty, . . . defendant has the burden of showing a miscarriage of justice.” People v Davis, 24 Mich App 304, 305 ; 180 NW2d 285 (1970).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568468. Public record. Not legal advice.