Michigan Supreme Court Blog

Last Friday, the Supreme Court rendered another opinion dealing with a criminal case in People v Roberto Dupree . The question presented was whether a defendant may assert the defense of self-defense when charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm contrary to MCL 750.224f. The answer, at least in regard to Dupree’s facts, is, “Yes.” The Court granted Dupree a new trial, finding that Wayne County Circuit Judge Brian Sullivan erred when he gave, sua sponte, a jury instruction which he called “the necessity defense to being a felon-in-possession.” Justice Maura Corrigan wrote the opinion for the majority, consisting of Justices Weaver, Young, Markman, Hathaway and her, affirming the Court of Appeals published decision . (Judge Murray dissented ).  Justices Cavanagh and Kelly concurred in the result but wrote separately concerning the additional defense of duress which the defendant raised separately. Kevin Ernst represented Dupree on appeal. The defendant’s version of the

In People v Gursky , the Michigan Supreme Court addressed the definition of “spontaneous” as the term is used in the “tender years” hearsay exception created by MRE 803A . The more restrictive definition declared by the Court resulted in the finding that the challenged statements were inadmissible and thus, had been erroneously admitted by the trial court. The victory for the defendant, however, was short lived as his four convictions for 1st Degree CSC ( MCL 750.520b(1)a ) were affirmed. The Court held the Macomb County Circuit Court’s error was harmless. Gursky was convicted of committing multiple acts of sexual penetration with his girlfriend’s daughter when she was six and seven years of age. The child testified at trial about the charged incidents. However, the prosecution called an adult friend of the child’s mother who testified to several out of court statements made by the child in response to the witness’ probing questions, days after the last date of offense. The question

A divided Michigan Supreme Court on Friday reversed both the Muskegon Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals regarding what it means to “make or produce” child sexually abusive material under MCL 750.145c(2) when a defendant downloads child pornography from the internet and then simply copies those images to CD’s, where no proof exists to suggest the defendant had the intent to do anything other than retain the images for his own personal use. In People v. Hill , the defendant was charged with five counts of making child sexually abusive material, a twenty (20) year felony, and a Class B offense under the guidelines. Hill, represented on appeal by Grand Rapids attorney, Frank Stanley , contended he was merely guilty of the four (4) year felony for knowing possession of the prohibited material pursuant to MCL 750.145c(3), a much less serious Class D offense. In 2006, police discovered 50 CD-Rs in Hill’s bedroom with over 70,000 images of child pornography. Justice Markman wrote for