Justia Michigan Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The defendant was convicted by a jury of being a violent felon in possession of body armor after driving from Michigan into Canada without paying a toll. He was arrested by a Canadian customs agent, Officer Lavers, and returned to the U.S., where American customs agent Officer Stockwell took custody of him and a bulletproof vest. The Canadian government did not allow Lavers to testify at trial. The defendant moved to exclude evidence of the vest, arguing it violated the Confrontation Clause since Lavers could not testify. The trial court denied the motion but barred testimony about statements made by Lavers. At trial, Stockwell testified about taking custody of the defendant and the vest based on communications with Lavers. Other evidence included the defendant’s statements about wearing the vest due to threats.The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to vacate the conviction, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Lavers’s out-of-court statement was testimonial and admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause. The court also found the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the only other evidence supporting the vest’s admission violated the corpus delicti rule. The case was remanded for a new trial. The prosecution appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court held that a defendant’s right to confrontation is violated when a trial witness’s testimony introduces the substance of an unavailable witness’s out-of-court statement if it leads to a clear and logical inference that the statement was testimonial. The court affirmed that the Confrontation Clause was violated but found the Court of Appeals erred in applying the corpus delicti rule to the defendant’s statements. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine if the Confrontation Clause violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "People of Michigan v. Washington" on Justia Law

Eric Bradley and Jacqueline Chuang filed a lawsuit in the Washtenaw Circuit Court against Linda Frye-Chaiken for breach of contract, specific performance, and promissory estoppel. The dispute arose from an agreement to sell a condominium in the Cayman Islands, which Frye-Chaiken later hesitated to complete following her mother's death. Frye-Chaiken claimed the contract was obtained through coercion or fraud and counterclaimed that her diminished capacity due to her mother's illness invalidated the agreement. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Bradley and Chuang, ordering specific performance of the contract and dismissing Frye-Chaiken's counterclaims.The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, supporting the summary disposition and the order for specific performance. Bradley and Chuang then sought sanctions, arguing that Frye-Chaiken's defenses and counterclaims were frivolous. Frye-Chaiken hired Barry Powers to represent her in the sanctions proceedings. The trial court awarded $16,714.27 in attorney fees to Bradley and Chuang, holding Frye-Chaiken, Powers, and her previous attorneys jointly and severally liable for the sanctions.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that under MCR 1.109(E) and MCL 600.2591, sanctions for frivolous filings should only be imposed on the attorney who signed the frivolous documents and the represented party. The court found that Powers did not sign any of the frivolous documents and was only involved in litigating the amount of sanctions. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by holding Powers jointly and severally liable for the sanctions. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Bradley v. Frye-Chaiken" on Justia Law

Police officers observed a parked car with its engine running in an elementary school parking lot at 10:00 p.m. They parked their patrol car 10 feet behind the parked car at a 45-degree angle, with headlights and a spotlight directed at the car. The officers approached the car, noticed signs of intoxication from the driver, and arrested him after he failed field sobriety tests. The driver later consented to a blood draw and admitted to drinking alcohol.The Oakland Circuit Court denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence of intoxication, arguing it was the result of an unlawful seizure. The Court of Appeals denied interlocutory leave to appeal. The Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine when the defendant was first seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. On remand, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the defendant was seized when the patrol car parked behind him. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant was not seized when the patrol car parked 10 feet away at a 45-degree angle.The Michigan Supreme Court held that a seizure may occur when a police vehicle partially blocks a defendant’s egress if the totality of the circumstances indicates that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. The Court found that the defendant was seized before the officers observed signs of intoxication, considering the police conduct, the time, and the setting. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded to determine whether the officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct when the defendant was initially seized. View "People of Michigan v. Duff" on Justia Law

In the first case, a young woman with severe headaches due to excess brain fluid had a shunt catheter implanted. She later returned to the emergency room with worsening symptoms, and a brain scan was performed. Dr. Swofford, a diagnostic radiologist, verified the scan results, but the emergency procedure to relieve her brain pressure failed, and she died. The plaintiff, representing the decedent's estate, sued Dr. Swofford and his practice for medical malpractice. The trial court ruled that the relevant specialty was diagnostic radiology, not neuroradiology, and thus excluded the plaintiff's neuroradiologist expert. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding neuroradiology to be the relevant specialty, allowing the expert to testify.In the second case, a plaintiff sued Dr. Colton for medical malpractice after multiple rhinoplasties resulted in a nasal deformity. Dr. Colton was certified in otolaryngology and facial plastic and reconstructive surgery. The plaintiff's expert, Dr. Armstrong, had the same certifications but spent most of his time on otolaryngology. The trial court found the expert's qualifications unclear and denied a motion to strike his testimony. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the relevant specialty was facial plastic and reconstructive surgery, and excluded the expert because he did not spend the majority of his time in that specialty.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed both cases. It held that the Woodard decision, which conflated "specialty" and "subspecialty," was incorrect. The Court clarified that "specialty" refers to general board certifications recognized by major certifying entities and does not require matching subspecialties. In Stokes, the Court affirmed that diagnostic radiology was the relevant specialty, allowing the neuroradiologist to testify. In Selliman, the Court remanded the case to determine whether facial plastic and reconstructive surgery is a subspecialty, requiring further fact-finding by the trial court. View "Estate Of Horn v. Swofford" on Justia Law

In 2005, the defendant's infant daughter, Nakita, died while under the defendant's care. The defendant claimed Nakita was choking, but after an autopsy, the medical examiner concluded that Nakita died from shaken baby syndrome (SBS). The defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder in 2006 and sentenced to life in prison without parole. In 2017, the defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment, presenting new expert testimony that challenged the SBS diagnosis and suggested alternative causes of death, such as choking.The Wayne Circuit Court held an evidentiary hearing but ultimately denied the defendant's motion, ruling that the new expert testimony was inadmissible under Michigan Rule of Evidence (MRE) 702. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that the biomechanical engineering evidence was inadmissible and that the new evidence did not make a different result probable on retrial.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the expert testimony. The Court held that the biomechanical engineering evidence was relevant and reliable under MRE 702, as it was based on sufficient facts and reliable principles. The Court also determined that the new evidence, including the changed opinion of the original medical examiner and other expert testimony, made a different result probable on retrial. The Court concluded that the defendant had demonstrated "good cause" and "actual prejudice" as required by Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 6.508(D)(3) and satisfied all four prongs of the test established in People v. Cress.The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions and remanded the case for a new trial, allowing the new expert testimony to be considered. View "People Of Michigan v. Lemons" on Justia Law

Cleveland Stegall was employed at an FCA vehicle assembly plant through a staffing agency, Brightwing. In late 2015, FCA announced plans to eliminate Stegall’s shift by summer 2016. In April 2016, Stegall raised concerns about asbestos in the workplace to his FCA supervisors, who promised air quality tests but did not provide results. Stegall continued to request the results and threatened to file complaints with OSHA and Michigan OSHA. He was terminated on June 17, 2016, and subsequently filed a discrimination complaint with Michigan OSHA, alleging retaliation for his asbestos concerns.The Oakland Circuit Court granted summary disposition for both defendants, ruling that Stegall’s public-policy claim was preempted by the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) and that internal complaints could not support a public-policy claim. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the public-policy claim was preempted and could not be based on internal reporting. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that internal reporting could support a public-policy claim and remanded for further consideration of whether the claim was preempted by other laws.On remand, the Court of Appeals concluded that Stegall’s public-policy claim was preempted by OSHA and MiOSHA, as these statutes provided exclusive remedies for retaliation. The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the remedies under OSHA and MiOSHA were inadequate and thus not exclusive. Therefore, Stegall’s public-policy claim was not preempted. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine if there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding Stegall’s claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. View "Stegall V Resource Technology Corporation" on Justia Law

Stephanie Wilson was driving a 2006 Saturn Ion with Malcolm Smith as a passenger when they were pulled over by a police officer surveilling a house for narcotics activity. The officer observed what he believed to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction involving Smith. After stopping the vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer found five empty syringes but no drugs. Wilson denied the officer's claim that she admitted to driving Smith to purchase drugs. The vehicle was seized, and nearly four months later, forfeiture proceedings were initiated.The Wayne Circuit Court granted summary disposition in favor of Wilson, finding that the officer's observation of a hand-to-hand transaction did not necessarily involve drugs. The court did not specify the grounds for its ruling. The plaintiff's motions for reconsideration and relief from judgment were denied. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Wilson used her vehicle to facilitate a drug purchase, making it subject to forfeiture.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that under MCL 333.7521(1)(d), a vehicle is subject to forfeiture only if it is used to transport illicit property for the purpose of its sale or receipt. The Court found that the elements of the statute were not concurrently fulfilled in this case. Specifically, while Wilson's vehicle was used to drive to a location where drugs were purchased, there was no evidence that the vehicle was used to transport drugs for the purpose of sale or receipt. Therefore, the vehicle was not subject to forfeiture under the statute. The Wayne Circuit Court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of Wilson was reinstated. View "In Re Forfeiture Of 2006 Saturn Ion" on Justia Law

Stephen M. Butka was accused of groping his two stepdaughters and masturbating in front of them when they were between 13 and 16 years old. He pleaded no contest to one count of third-degree child abuse in exchange for the dismissal of more severe charges. In 2006, he was sentenced to nine months in jail, two years of probation, and required to register as a sex offender. After successfully completing probation in 2008, Butka applied to have his conviction set aside in 2012, 2019, and 2021, but each application was denied, primarily due to the victims' objections.The Otsego Circuit Court denied Butka's applications, citing the ongoing emotional impact on the victims as inconsistent with the public welfare. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, relying on the precedent set in People v. Boulding, which required balancing the applicant's circumstances and behavior against the public welfare. The appellate court concluded that the victims' ongoing distress justified denying the application.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and clarified the interpretation of "public welfare" under MCL 780.621d(13). The Court held that the public welfare cannot be determined solely by the impact on the victims or a limited class of people. The Court found that the lower courts erred by focusing only on the victims' statements and not considering the broader public welfare. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and the trial court's decision, directing the trial court to grant Butka's application to set aside his conviction. View "People v. Butka" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, was electrocuted while carrying a long-handled aluminum tool at a construction site. The tool either touched or came close to a high-voltage power line owned by the defendant utility company. The plaintiff sustained severe injuries, including amputations and a traumatic brain injury. He filed a lawsuit against the general contractor and the utility company, alleging negligence and premises liability.The Wayne Circuit Court denied the defendants' motions for summary disposition. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the general contractor was not liable under the common work area doctrine and that the utility company did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to survive summary disposition. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding three of the four elements of the common work area doctrine for the general contractor. Specifically, there were factual disputes about the height of the power lines and whether the general contractor took reasonable steps to guard against the danger. The court also found that multiple subcontractors were exposed to the risk, satisfying the requirement of a high degree of risk to a significant number of workers in a common work area.Regarding the utility company, the court found genuine issues of material fact about whether the power lines were properly maintained and whether the injury was foreseeable. The court concluded that the utility company had a duty to ensure the safety of the power lines, given the pre-injury communications and the known dangers of high-reaching conductive tools.The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "El-Jamaly V Kirco Manix Construction Llc" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury in the Allegan Circuit Court of multiple counts of criminal sexual conduct. During the trial, the presiding judge exchanged emails with the county prosecutor, expressing concerns about the police investigation. The defendant later discovered these communications and moved for a new trial, alleging judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The case was reassigned to a different judge, who granted the motion for a new trial due to the appearance of impropriety created by the emails. The prosecution appealed this decision.The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the trial court had abused its discretion in granting a new trial. The appellate court concluded that the trial judge's ex parte communications were permissible for administrative purposes under the judicial conduct code and did not influence the jury's verdict. The defendant then sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the trial judge's ex parte communications violated the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct. The court found that these communications were not for administrative purposes and created an appearance of impropriety. However, the court concluded that the communications did not show actual bias or a high probability of bias that would violate the defendant's constitutional rights. The court also determined that the trial judge's failure to recuse herself did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as the jury was unaware of the communications and the trial prosecutor did not alter her strategy in response to them. Therefore, the court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the trial court had no legal basis to grant a new trial. View "People of Michigan v. Loew" on Justia Law