Michigan Supreme Court Blog

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...