Michigan Supreme Court Blog

On November 23, 2009, the Troy City Council amended the city's local ordinance , rescinding that portion authorizing police to issue tickets to underage drinkers who refuse to submit to a preliminary breath test. See, " Troy Changes Procedures on Underage Arrests ." The amendment was in response to the Michigan Court of Appeals decision in People v Choudhury , a Troy student who was ticketed for being a minor in possession after submitting to a required PBT. Troy District Court Judge William Bolle had suppressed the evidence gained as the result of the PBT finding that the search of Chowdhury's person was accomplished without the benefit of search warrant or a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. The City appealed and, in a written opinion the COA called "succinct but complete," Judge Rae Lee Chabot affirmed. Judges Cynthia Diane Stephens, Kathleen Jansen and Kurtis Wilder rejected the City's contention that a warrant was not required becaus

Yesterday, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the first degree, premeditated murder conviction of Anthony LaCalamita, III, in a short, 4-page per curiam opinion signed by Judges Pat Donofrio, David Sawyer and Donald Owens. As many may recall, LaCalamita was charged with murder as the result of a shooting spree in the Troy offices of Gordon Advisors. See, LaCalamita Sentenced to Life in Prison . The firm's receptionist, Madeline Kafoury, died as the result of gunshot wound to the chest. LaCalamita had been fired from his position with the company four days prior to the shooting. On appeal, the Court rejected the defendant's claim that the verdicts of guilty on each of the multiple counts was against the great weight of the evidence. The defense claimed the evidence presented at trial clearly established that LaCalamita was legally insane at the time the crime was committed. The Court, however, reasoned that a verdict is against the great weight if the evidence preponderates

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted oral argument on two interesting criminal cases: one from the Kent County Circuit Court, People v Hercules-Lopez , and another out of Ingham County in People v Mushatt . In Hercules-Lopez , the Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, had reversed the jury conviction of the defendant for armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery and felony firearm. During deliberations, the jury expressed some confusion as to whether they could conclude the defendant had entered an agreement to commit the crime charged. The trial court replied, without the defendant's attorney present, “If the defendant actually agreed with another to commit a crime, it does not matter why he agreed.” The majority, Judges Jane Markey and Stephen Borrello, concluded that giving the supplemental, non-standard jury instruction without counsel's presence was a critical stage of the proceedings and the complete denial of counsel at a critical stage requires automatic re

The following article is reprinted from the SCOTUSblog , an excellent blog published by Tom Goldstein of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLC . The article was written by Anna Christiansen. The case framed the following: Issue: Must a suspect be expressly advised to his right to counsel during questioning and if so, does the failure to provide this express advice vitiate Miranda v. Arizona ? "Below, Sam Bateman of Stanford Law School recaps Florida v. Powell , one of two cases heard by the Court on Monday. Sam previewed the case here on Sunday, and Lyle’s post-argument analysis is available here . Check the Florida v. Powell (08-1175) SCOTUSwiki page for additional updates. At oral argument on December 7 in Florida v. Powell, the Court grappled with how far a “Miranda warning” can deviate from the standard content typically included in such warnings – particularly an admonition regarding a suspect’s right to have counsel present “during” questioning – before it ceases to

The Michigan Supreme Court continues its weekly oral argument schedule on November 4, 2009. The Court hears arguments in the appeal of People v Redd on Wednesday morning. Defendant Anthony Marion Redd was accused of having sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl. An Oakland County jury convicted him of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. However, the trial court, Honorable Rudy Nichols, granted the defendant’s motion for a new trial because the prosecutor obtained extensive testimony from a police detective that the defendant failed to answer certain accusations about the assault and suddenly left an interview. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and reinstated the conviction. The Michigan Supreme Court is asked to decide three issues on appeal: 1.Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it granted the defendant a new trial? 2.Did the trial court err in admitting the police detective’s testimony? 3.Did the defendant waive any error when his attorney express

On November 3, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued one of two published opinions in People v. Davenport , Docket No. 271366 . Gary Davenport was convicted of six counts of 1st Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct following a bench trial. The primary issue on appeal pertained to his trial counsel’s failure to challenge the potential conflict of interest when his first attorney joined the Presque Isle County Prosecutor’s Office. Before trial, but after the preliminary exam, the defendant’s attorney “switched sides” and went to work as one of two attorneys at the county prosecutor’s office (same office pursuing the CSC charges). The successor trial counsel did not raise the potential conflict issue, nor was it addressed by either the trial judge or the prosecutor. In the first appeal, People v. Davenport , 280 Mich App 464 (2008), the defendant made an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based, in part, on defendant’s trial counsel failure to move for disqualification of the prosecuto

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in People v. DiPiazza , ( COA # 284946 ) on November 3, 2009, that a defendant who completed HYTA ( Holmes Youthful Trainee Act ) could not be required to register under Michigan’s Sex Offender Registry Act because it imposed on the defendant cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 16. Robert DiPiazza, age 18, had consensual sexual intercourse with his then-14-year-old high school sweetheart. A high school teacher had found a photograph of the two in bed and contacted the local prosecutor. Subsequently, he pled guilty to one count of attempted CSC, 3d degree, and was sentenced under the HYTA in August, 2004. He successfully completed his term of probation. (The two were ultimately married in 2009 and expecting their first child in June of this year). The trial court, however, ruled that DiPiazza was still required to register as a sex offender because the SORA was not amended until six weeks after he w

The full text of all of the opinions cited in our blog are available at the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals websites. The links for both are listed in the column on the right.

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued a published opinion dealing with Michigan’s Civil Rights Act that could have significant impact on the availability of certain causes of action not confined only to the prisoner/jailer relationship. In Hamed v Wayne County Plaintiff was in custody of Wayne County deputy sheriffs who transported her to Wayne County Jail. Deputy Johnson was alone on duty in the male registry area of the jail. Jail regulations required attendance of a female deputy in the presence of female inmates. However, upon being contacted, Sgt. Dawash permitted the deputies to leave plaintiff alone with Johnson. The Plaintiff alleged that Johnson subjected her to unwanted sexual conduct in circumstances that suggested that her treatment as an inmate would depend on whether she submitted to that conduct. Johnson then directed her into a private office where he sexually assaulted plaintiff. Johnson was subsequently convicted of criminal sexual conduct. The trial court er

On July 1, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court issued two separate but intertwined opinions dealing with the issue of whether prosecutors can use a criminal defendant's post-arrest, post- Miranda silence as evidence in the prosecution's case-in-chief or as impeachment of the defendant should he provide exculpatory testimony in defense of the charges. In People v Shafier and People v Borgne , Justice Michael F. Cavanagh, writing for the majority (Justice Marilyn Kelly concurring), reached opposite results on what at first blush may seem to be identical cases. In Shafier , the defendant was convicted of two counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct based upon the allegations of his 13 year-old adopted daughter. The jury acquitted him of three additional counts of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct. Once the allegation was made, the defendant was immediately arrested and Mirandized. When he was first confronted by the arresting officer about the allegations, the defendant c

Daily, the Michigan Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals issue opinions that have a significant impact on the legal community, the business community, schools, government and society in general. It is our hope to provide one central location to afford the oportunity for all to discuss the decisions of Michigan's courts and for us to hopefully simplify and make the decisions easier to understand for the general public. We will present the issues decided, prognosticate on what impact the decision will have and generally discuss the goings on at Michigan's highest courts. We hope this site will provide everyone with informative and valuable insight into the sometimes mysterious high courts. Welcome.