Case law

People of Michigan v. Octavius Martez Hall

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2021

To establish prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. … The trial court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that McCray’s injuries were life-threatening.

Citizens Insurance Company of America v. Jerry Sholtey

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2018

Thus, Goosic clearly and unequivocally testified that the only document in the envelope mailed to Sholtey was the cancellation notice. … Clearly, MCL 500.3142 does not contemplate awarding 12% interest under the posture of the present case.

People of Michigan v. Shawn Feaon Pickens

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 15, 2021

“To establish entitlement to relief under plain-error review, the defendant must establish that an error occurred, that the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and that the plain error affected substantial rights.” … This Court concluded that the trial court clearly erred in denying the motion to suppress.

Virginia Park Subdivision Association v. Pascal Brown

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 2019

The crucial question is who owns the other half of the way which is clearly riparian property—the plattors, the “front lot” owners, or the persons to whom the way is dedicated? … “An easement does not displace the general possession of the land by its owner, but merely grants the holder of the easement qualified possession only to the extent necessary for enjoyment of the rights conferred by the easement

People of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence Tallman III

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2023

The police discovered the victim in a neighboring house clearly deceased from multiple gunshot wounds. … The trial court clearly expressed disbelief that defense counsel would engage in abusive conduct.

People of Michigan v. Kiefer Derik Olger

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2017

A statement Trim made to defendant around the same time would also, therefore, have qualified as an exited utterance. … The greater offense in this case, MCL 750.317a, clearly contains elements that are not contained in a delivery offense under MCL 333.7401.

People of Michigan v. Kiefer Derik Olger

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2017

A statement Trim made to defendant around the same time would also, therefore, have qualified as an exited utterance. … The greater offense in this case, MCL 750.317a, clearly contains elements that are not contained in a delivery offense under MCL 333.7401.

Pete's Auto and Truck Parts Inc v. Greg Hibbitts Transport Company

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2022

To determine whether a decision applies retroactively, the threshold question is “whether the decision clearly established a new principle of law.” Id. at 696. … Because Dye did not clearly establish a new principle of law, it does not satisfy Pohutski’s threshold question and should be applied retroactively. See Pohutski, 465 Mich at 696. Cf.

Timothy Copacia v. Martin Ginzinger

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2016

formed in accordance with the Michigan Limited Liability Company Act, MCL 450.4101, et seq., to own a parcel of undeveloped land in Oakland Township and develop it into a residential site condominium development, later established … The purported oral agreement between the parties to evenly split the Wynridge development costs and expenses clearly falls within the language of MCL 450.4302(1).

People of Michigan v. Eddie Lee Skellett

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 2020

During discussions at trial, the parties agreed that assault with intent to do great bodily harm qualified as a lesser included offense of assault with intent to commit murder, but defense counsel confirmed that he was not … Defendant has not established any plain error with regard to this matter.

People of Michigan v. Demario Robehier Wade-Bey

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2018

We conclude that the prosecutor’s closing argument, to which defendant now objects, qualified as permissible argument that defendant’s trial testimony was not worthy of belief. … “It is well established that jurors are presumed to follow their instructions.” People v Graves, 458 Mich 476, 486; 581 NW2d 229 (1998).

People of Michigan v. Bernardo Carlos Reeves

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2018

Regardless of the precise articulation, some statements qualify under any definition—for example, ex parte testimony at a preliminary hearing. … Defendant walked around at times during the interview without stumbling or wobbling, clearly and concisely read his Miranda rights aloud at the beginning of the interview, and clearly answered questions posed to him and provided

People of Michigan v. Dwayne Anthony Dupree

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2019

The trial court concluded that defendant had not established that Detective Sergeant Molnar should not have been qualified as an expert or that his methodology was defective. … However, it was not discussed how clearly the witnesses saw the driver of the vehicle from inside their homes, particularly considering that they had to quickly seek safety from the gunshots.

People of Michigan v. Demario Robehier Wade-Bey

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2018

We conclude that the prosecutor’s closing argument, to which defendant now objects, qualified as permissible argument that defendant’s trial testimony was not worthy of belief. … “It is well established that jurors are presumed to follow their instructions.” People v Graves, 458 Mich 476, 486; 581 NW2d 229 (1998).

in Re Application of Dte Electric Company to Increase Rates

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2018

Residential’s “suggestion that the [M]PSC could order [a public utility] to develop an opt-in program is clearly the type of action found invalid in Union Carbide [v Pub Serv Comm], 431 Mich [135,] 148-150[; 428 NW2d 322 … Reliance on hypothetical or speculative injuries is insufficient to establish a constitutionally-based claim of injury.

People of Michigan v. Marlon Demario Ezell

Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2019

A trial court clearly errs when this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. … trial court could make findings of fact not found by the jury without violating Ezell’s rights under the Sixth Amendment, see People v Biddles, 316 Mich App 148, 158-161; 896 NW2d 461 (2016), and he necessarily does not qualify

People of Michigan v. Kashif Omar Reynolds

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 2017

Therefore, Lay has not established the factual predicate for his claim. See Hoag, 460 Mich at 6. … Here, the evidence established that the rifle used in this case fired the same ammunition as an AK47.

People of Michigan v. Keith Irving Luesing

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2017

“A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it either lacks substantial evidence to sustain it, or if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.” … (“[I]f the alibi is established, a perfect defense has been shown.

People of Michigan v. Romante Jomall Adams

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2020

Considering the low bar for establishing this second step, the prosecution’s reasons were sufficient. Id. … He only makes the bare assertion that the juror could not fairly and competently consider the charges against him and therefore was not qualified to give a verdict.

Zachary Newmeyer v. Department of Health and Human Services

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2022

Scott Sietsema, a forensic scientist in the Michigan State Police Crime Lab, was qualified as an expert in controlled substances and conducted a peer review in this case. … The lab report and the witnesses in this case clearly establish that the pie crust, not the shaved marijuana, was sent to the crime lab.