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 ...