Case law

People of Michigan v. Pierre Lamar Tipton Jr

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2020

A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. People v Miller, 482 Mich 540, 544; 759 NW2d 850 (2008). … Moving a victim away from the presence or observation -9- of others qualifies as asporting the victim to a place or situation involving greater danger. Id. at 22.

People of Michigan v. Donald Maurice Porter

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2018

Ordinary negligence is insufficient to establish involuntary manslaughter. Id. at 590 n 4. Instead, the death must result from gross negligence. Id. … The prosecutor prepared to impeach Jones with the video from his interrogation, in which he clearly stated at the time of the interrogation that he was not drunk.

People of Michigan v. Christopher Dewayne Whitlock

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 9, 2019

Defendant does not contest that he was charged with a listed offense as defined by the statute, nor does not contest that the other-acts evidence would qualify as another listed offense. … -7- Clearly defendant’s testimony concerning parts of the detective’s report was in evidence, and the prosecutor did not introduce facts not in evidence.

People of Michigan v. Xun Wang

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 10, 2018

In explaining its finding that defendant caused Medicaid to be billed, the court stated: A doctor must be present in order to delegate to an unlicensed physician, which [defendant] was clearly an unlicensed … follows: (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (6), a licensee who holds a license other than a health profession subfield license may delegate to a licensed or unlicensed individual who is otherwise qualified

People of Michigan v. Willie Lamont Claude Washington

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2020

Defendant does not dispute that the testimony provided by JN and AJ qualified for admission under MCL 768.27a(1). … Finally, we note that defendant argues no other factors that would establish prejudice from the admission of the other-acts evidence.

Joanne L Evangelista Revocable Trust v. City of Farmington Hills

Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 2017

The trust documents establish Joanne as the trustee and provide that Joanne shall receive all net income from the trust over her lifetime and shall have the ability to withdraw all principal held by the trust. … Further, the record clearly shows that in 1998, Michael and Joanne conveyed the property by quitclaim deed to the trust. A quitclaim deed conveys a grantors’ “complete interest or claim in real property.”

People of Michigan v. Xun Wang

Michigan Court of Appeals · May 10, 2018

In explaining its finding that defendant caused Medicaid to be billed, the court stated: A doctor must be present in order to delegate to an unlicensed physician, which [defendant] was clearly an unlicensed … follows: (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (6), a licensee who holds a license other than a health profession subfield license may delegate to a licensed or unlicensed individual who is otherwise qualified

Glen S Morris v. R Judd Schnoor

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2016

Given both the absence of any qualifying or limiting language within either the stipulation or the order and the actual and plain language used, we must conclude that Charron’s contention that the stipulation reflected merely … The trial court clearly considered the appropriate factors in upholding the stipulation and order regarding the reasonable hourly fee rates to be applied, as evidenced by its conclusion: “The process of establishing the contempt

Pinebrook Warren LLC v. City of Warren

Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2024

-15-  defined to be licensees who were authorized to purchase marijuana from a grower or processor and sell it to registered qualifying patients. … Accordingly, the trial court clearly provided equitable relief. The term “judgment” includes decrees in modern usage. See MCL 600.112.

People of Michigan v. Rachel Lynn Bruce

Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 2017

She was qualified as an expert in both of these fields. Ross examined the decedent’s body. … The trial court did not clearly err in finding that counsel sufficiently advised Rachel so that she could make an informed and voluntary choice whether to accept or reject the plea offer.

People of Michigan v. Mark Anthony Jakee

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2023

The presentence investigation report provided to us establishes a guidelines minimum sentence range of 120 to 210 months, which relates to Count VII. … This qualifies as the most horrendous sex offense I’ve seen, in almost 30 years doing this—29 years now. And unfortunately there are a lot of sex offenses we see.

Beverly Knox-Pipes v. Genesee Intermediate School District

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2015

Rather, Hagel was clearly upset that plaintiff was abusing GISD-owned equipment at the local districts’ expense, which is the very thing that Clio Schools was countersuing the GISD and GenNET for. … Because plaintiff’s actions were not protected activity, she again fails to establish a prima facie case under the WPA.

People of Michigan v. Christopher James Harner

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2017

fair and impartial jury.27 MCR 2.511(D) sets forth several reasons that a party may challenge a potential juror for cause, which are generally premised on one of two principles: either the individual is not statutorily qualified … The prosecution was questioning a potential juror about her ability to set aside personal beliefs regarding the subject matter of the case, and clearly noted that the jury would be required to find facts from the evidence

People of Michigan v. Christopher James Harner

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2017

fair and impartial jury.27 MCR 2.511(D) sets forth several reasons that a party may challenge a potential juror for cause, which are generally premised on one of two principles: either the individual is not statutorily qualified … The prosecution was questioning a potential juror about her ability to set aside personal beliefs regarding the subject matter of the case, and clearly noted that the jury would be required to find facts from the evidence

People of Michigan v. Shavon Marie Bethea

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2018

Marcus DeGraw, who was qualified as an expert in pediatrics and child abuse, testified that NB’s injuries were consistent with cigarette burns and a cut from a knife. … Defendant has not established plain error. Coy, 258 Mich App at 12. IV.

People of Michigan v. Isaiah Leon Ramseur

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2021

Clearly, a defendant cannot exercise both rights simultaneously. … Here, the district court clearly failed to make a record to establish that defendant knew what he was doing and made his choice with “eyes open.”

People of Michigan v. Shavon Marie Bethea

Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2018

Marcus DeGraw, who was qualified as an expert in pediatrics and child abuse, testified that NB’s injuries were consistent with cigarette burns and a cut from a knife. … Defendant has not established plain error. Coy, 258 Mich App at 12. IV.

People of Michigan v. Austin Wade Smith

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2024

“A trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, after reviewing the entire record, we are definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court make a mistake.” … Defendant’s argument is thus without merit and his sentence must be affirmed as Carlson is binding precedent which determined that CSC-IV qualifies as a felony for the purposes of scoring OV 13. Id.

People of Michigan v. Sean Philip Dailey

Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2017

The Court, citing MRE 704, stated that “[i]t is . . . well-established that expert opinion testimony will not be excluded simply because it concerns the ultimate issue.” … However, an examining physician, if qualified by experience and training relative to treatment of sexual assault victims, can give an opinion with respect to whether a complainant had been sexually assaulted when the opinion

People of Michigan v. Nadeem Yousaf Rajput

Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2018

It is the responsibility of the trial court to “clearly present the case to the jury and to instruct it on the applicable law.” Id. … This was the evidence that defendant relied on to establish his claim of self- defense, and her act did not depend on whether she was told by Clay to take such an action.