Justia Michigan Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jason Triplett was convicted by jury on counts of domestic violence, carrying a concealed weapon and felonious assault. The charges arose after he threatened to use his utility knife to escape from two men who had stopped their vehicle when they spotted defendant and his wife fighting on the side of the road. The trial court instructed the jury that self-defense was a defense to the charge of felonious assault but that it was not a defense to carrying a concealed weapon (CCW). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ determination, the Michigan Supreme Court concluded that the common-law affirmative defense of self-defense was indeed available to a defendant charged with CCW for concealing an instrument which is a dangerous weapon only because it is used as a weapon. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, vacated defendant’s CCW conviction, and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Michigan v. Triplett" on Justia Law

Defendants, an unlicensed residential builder; his businesses; and Denaglen Corp., a check-cashing service, appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, homeowners who contracted to have their home restored following a flood. On appeal, this case raised four issues: (1) whether MCL 339.2412(1), which prohibited an unlicensed builder from "bring[ing] or maintain[ing] an action . . . for the collection of compensation," prevents an unlicensed builder from defending on the merits against claims asserted against him by a homeowner; (2) whether MCL 339.2412(1) provided a homeowner with an independent cause of action for damages arising from the statute's violation; (3) whether a contract for the services of an unlicensed builder was void ab initio or whether it may have some form of continuing legal existence; and (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the default of defendant Denaglen Corp., the check-cashing service. In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court found that the appellate court erred in granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs. While the Court of Appeals correctly held that MCL 339.2412(1) did not prevent an unlicensed builder from defending against a lawsuit on its merits and did not afford a homeowner an independent cause of action to seek damages for its violation. However, contracts between an innocent homeowner and an unlicensed residential builder were voidable by the homeowner and thereby effective in conveying rights and authorities to both parties and third parties. The Court of Appeals therefore erred when it declared the contract at issue void ab initio, "although that court's error was wholly understandable given the confusing state of applicable law." Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant defendant Denaglen relief from its default. However, because the proper amount of damages remained in dispute, Denaglen was free to attempt to challenge the extent of its liability. View "Epps v. 4 Quarters Restoration, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant Feronda Smith was charged with, among other things, armed robbery and first-degree felony murder after the police found known drug dealer Larry Pass, Jr., dead in Pass’s own home. At trial, two prosecution witnesses claimed to have been present when defendant allegedly shot Pass. The first witness was codefendant Tarence Lard, who testified for the prosecution as part of a plea agreement for his part in the crime. The second witness was Mark Yancy, who maintained his innocence with respect to the shooting but admitted collecting Pass’s drugs, helping dispose of the murder weapon, and using cocaine with defendant and Lard after the shooting. Yancy and Lard contradicted one another in important ways, although both testified that Yancy and defendant had had a violent dispute over money in the weeks leading up to the murder. No other evidence connected defendant to the crime or confirmed that he had ever been at the scene, and no murder weapon was ever recovered. Yancy was a paid informant, and had been compensated for his assistance in a FBI inquiry into Pass' murder. The issue this case presented for the Michigan Supreme Court's review centered on whether the prosecution breached a duty to correct the substantially misleading, if not false, testimony of Yancy's about his formal and compensated cooperation in the government’s investigation. "Given the overall weakness of the evidence against the defendant and the significance of the witness’s testimony," the Supreme Court concluded that there was a reasonable probability that the prosecution’s exploitation of the substantially misleading testimony affected the verdict. Therefore the Court reversed and remanded this case for a new trial. View "Michigan v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant Timothy Jackson was convicted by a jury on six counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for sexually abusing a young member of the church where he served as pastor. At trial, the complainant’s aunt testified that she had approached the complainant to discuss the possible abuse in light of her own experiences and after talking with another woman who had also worked with defendant and had subsequently left the church. Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial, arguing that this testimony indicated that defendant had engaged in sexual relationships with the complainant’s aunt and her acquaintance, and was inadmissible evidence of other acts under MRE 404(b). The trial court overruled the objection and denied the motion, ruling that admissibility of the testimony was not governed by MRE 404(b) because the testimony was not evidence that defendant had engaged in prior sexual conduct with underage parishioners. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that although the testimony was evidence of other acts under MRE 404(b), it fell within an exception to that rule for res gestae evidence and thus could be admitted without reference to or compliance with the rule. Upon review, the Michigan Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the testimony was other-acts evidence as contemplated by MRE 404(b), and that the trial court erred in concluding otherwise. However, the Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals majority that the trial court’s failure to subject the testimony to scrutiny under MRE 404(b) was nonetheless correct because the testimony fell within a "res gestae exception" to that rule. Because the testimony at issue constituted evidence of "other acts" as contemplated by MRE 404(b), its admission was governed by that rule and its procedural requirements. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals’ determination that the defendant’s convictions should be affirmed, as defendant has failed to show entitlement to relief on the basis of this error. The Court therefore affirmed defendant’s convictions, but vacated that portion of the opinion of the Court of Appeals majority reasoning that the testimony at issue could be admitted without reference to or compliance with MRE 404(b) by virtue of a res gestae exception" to that rule. View "Michigan v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant Timothy Jackson was convicted by a jury on six counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for sexually abusing a young member of the church where he served as pastor. At trial, the complainant’s aunt testified that she had approached the complainant to discuss the possible abuse in light of her own experiences and after talking with another woman who had also worked with defendant and had subsequently left the church. Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial, arguing that this testimony indicated that defendant had engaged in sexual relationships with the complainant’s aunt and her acquaintance, and was inadmissible evidence of other acts under MRE 404(b). The trial court overruled the objection and denied the motion, ruling that admissibility of the testimony was not governed by MRE 404(b) because the testimony was not evidence that defendant had engaged in prior sexual conduct with underage parishioners. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that although the testimony was evidence of other acts under MRE 404(b), it fell within an exception to that rule for res gestae evidence and thus could be admitted without reference to or compliance with the rule. Upon review, the Michigan Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the testimony was other-acts evidence as contemplated by MRE 404(b), and that the trial court erred in concluding otherwise. However, the Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals majority that the trial court’s failure to subject the testimony to scrutiny under MRE 404(b) was nonetheless correct because the testimony fell within a "res gestae exception" to that rule. Because the testimony at issue constituted evidence of "other acts" as contemplated by MRE 404(b), its admission was governed by that rule and its procedural requirements. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals’ determination that the defendant’s convictions should be affirmed, as defendant has failed to show entitlement to relief on the basis of this error. The Court therefore affirmed defendant’s convictions, but vacated that portion of the opinion of the Court of Appeals majority reasoning that the testimony at issue could be admitted without reference to or compliance with MRE 404(b) by virtue of a res gestae exception" to that rule. View "Michigan v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Rahim Omarkhan Lockridge was convicted by jury of involuntary manslaughter for the death of his wife.His minimum sentence range calculated under the sentencing guidelines was 43 to 86 months. The trial court concluded that there were factors not accounted for in scoring the guidelines, including a probation violation, killing his wife in front of their three children, leaving the children at home with their mother dead on the floor, and prior domestic violence. Citing these as reasons to depart from the minimum sentence range, the court sentenced defendant to a term of 8 years (96 months) to 15 years (the statutory maximum sentence). Defendant appealed, challenging both the scoring of the guidelines and the trial court’s decision to exceed the guidelines minimum sentence range. While his case was pending in the Court of Appeals, the United States Supreme Court decided "Alleyne v United States," (133 S Ct 2151 (2013)), which extended the rule of "Apprendi v New Jersey," (530 US 466 (2000)), and held that a fact that increases either end of a defendant’s sentencing range must have been admitted by the defendant or found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. After allowing defendant to file a supplemental brief challenging the guidelines scoring on "Alleyne" grounds, the Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s sentence in three separate opinions and rejected the Alleyne challenge. The Michigan Supreme Court granted defendant's application to address the constitutional question presented by his Alleyne challenge. The Court found that in this case, defendant’s guidelines minimum sentence range was irrelevant to the upward departure sentence he ultimately received. Accordingly, the Court held that he could not show the prejudice necessary to establish plain error under "Michigan v. Carines," (597 NW2d 130 (1999)), and affirmed his sentence. View "Michigan v. Lockridge" on Justia Law

The Michigan Coalition of State Employee Unions and others brought an action in the Court of Claims against the State and various state agencies and officers, alleging that portions of 2011 PA 264, which amended the State Employees’ Retirement Act (SERA, MCL 38.1 et seq.), were unconstitutional because the resulting changes to retirement benefits altered rates of compensation or conditions of employment, which were within the exclusive authority of the Civil Service Commission to regulate. The Court of Claims granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that SERA retirement benefits were properly classified as both “rates of compensation” and “conditions of employment,” neither of which was subject to legislative alteration. The Supreme Court reversed. "While the [Civil Service Commission] has considerable constitutional powers to manage the civil service system and to preserve its sphere of constitutional authority, the commission has no legislative powers. It may neither enact legislation nor revise an enactment, nor may it dictate that the Legislature repeal or modify an enactment. Therefore, we hold that because the commission has acquiesced in the application of SERA to the employees of the civil service system, plaintiff’s objections fail to establish a basis for relief." View "Michigan Coalition of State Employee Unions v. Michigan" on Justia Law

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and others brought an action in the Court of Appeals against Nino Green and other members of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission, the Governor, and the Attorney General, seeking a declaratory judgment that portions of 2012 PA 349 (which amended the public employment relations act (PERA, MCL 423.201 et seq.), to prohibit public employers from requiring their employees to join a union or pay union-related expenses) were unconstitutional with respect to employees in the classified state civil service. The Court of Appeals held that the challenged portions of 2012 PA 349 were constitutional. Although the Supreme Court concluded that public collective bargaining was a method by which the Civil Service Commission (could choose to exercise its constitutional duties, the Court held that the commission could not effectively require civil servants to fund the commission’s own administrative operations. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals on different grounds. View "UAW v. Green" on Justia Law

Richard Hartwick was charged with manufacturing marijuana and possessing it with the intent to deliver it. Hartwick was a registered qualifying patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA). He served as his own primary caregiver and the primary caregiver for five other registered qualifying patients to whom he was properly connected under the MMMA. The police, acting on a tip, confronted Hartwick and later conducted a consent search of his home where the police discovered a disputed number of marijuana plants and approximately 3.69 ounces of marijuana. Hartwick moved to dismiss the charges, claiming immunity under section 4 of the MMMA, and the affirmative defense under section 8. In the alternative, Hartwick sought permission to present a section 8 defense at trial. The trial court denied the motions. Robert Tuttle was charged with three counts of delivering marijuana, one count of manufacturing marijuana, one count of possessing marijuana with the intent to deliver it, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Tuttle was a registered qualifying patient under the MMMA who served as his own primary caregiver. It was unclear whether he was properly connected as the primary caregiver to one or two other registered qualifying patients. Tuttle was arrested for selling marijuana on three occasions to an individual with whom Tuttle was not properly connected under the MMMA. Tuttle claimed immunity under section 4 and the affirmative defense under section 8 of the MMMA. The trial court rejected both claims and denied Tuttle’s request to present a section 8 defense at trial. According to the court, immunity was not appropriate because Tuttle’s illegal conduct (selling marijuana to an individual outside the protection of the MMMA) tainted Tuttle’s conduct with regard to the other charges. The trial court denied Tuttle use of the affirmative defense in section 8 because Tuttle failed to present prima facie evidence of each element of the defense. The Michigan Supreme Court granted certiorari review in these cases, not "to limit or extend the [MMMA's] words," but "merely bring them meaning derived from the plain language of the statute." After review of the specific facts of each defendant's case and their claims of immunity under the MMMA, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) the Court of Appeals properly held that Hartwick was not entitled to raise the affirmative defense under section 8 because he failed to present prima facie evidence of each element of the defense; (2) the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that Tuttle’s unprotected conduct with the unconnected individual tainted what might otherwise be protected conduct on which additional separate charges were based; (3) the Court of Appeals properly held that Tuttle could not claim the affirmative defense under section 8 because he failed to establish prima facie evidence of at least one of the elements of the defense for each of his possibly connected patients. For Hartwick, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine Hartwick's entitlement to section 4 immunity. For Tuttle, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded to the trial court to determine Tuttle's entitlement to section 4 immunity. View "Michigan v. Hartwick" on Justia Law

Adam Stevens was convicted by jury of second-degree murder and second-degree child abuse. The charges stemmed from the death of defendant’s three-month-old son, Kian. The prosecution alleged that defendant caused Kian’s death by either shaking him or slamming him against an object. Defendant alleged that he tripped and fell while holding Kian, and that as he fell, he lost control of Kian, who fell to the floor. Defendant denied shaking or slamming Kian. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences. On appeal, defendant argued that he was denied a fair trial because the trial judge, through his questioning of defendant and defendant’s expert, demonstrated partiality in front of the jury. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that the trial judge’s conduct with respect to defendant’s expert witness pierced the veil of judicial impartiality, depriving defendant of the right to a fair trial. View "Michigan v. Stevens" on Justia Law