Michigan Supreme Court Blog

Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court rendered its decision in People v Thabo Jones , Docket No. 147735 (December 23, 2014) , upholding the constitutionality of MCL 257.626(5) .  That statute mandates that, when the defendant is charged with reckless driving causing death (MCL 257.626(4)), the trial court shall not instruct the jury on the lesser offense of committing a moving violation causing death under MCL 257.601d .  The difference is significant in that the former carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment, where the latter is a one-year misdemeanor. Judge Richard Scutt , ruling on a pretrial request for the lesser included jury instruction, held MCL 257.626(5) was unconstitutional in that it infringed on the judiciary's authority to regulate court practice and procedure.  The prosecution sought interlocutory relief and the Court of Appeals (JJ. Ronayne-Krause and Shapiro, with K. F. Kelly dissenting ) affirmed . The Supreme Court granted leave and held ...

This week, the United States Supreme Court authored its opinion in Heien v North Carolina , holding 8-1 that a police officer's reasonable mistake about the law will justify a seizure and not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, while Justice Kagan (joined by Justice Ginsburg) wrote a concurring opinion.  Justice Soto-Mayor was alone in her dissent. Heien was traveling on Interstate 77 in North Carolina when Sgt. Matt Darisse of the Surry County Sheriff's Department pulled in behind him because Heien looked "stiff and nervous."  Further down the road, Heien braked for slower traffic, and only his left brake light came on. The deputy, believing that he had observed a traffic infraction (a defective brake light) stopped the vehicle.  He ultimately ended up searching the vehicle and found a baggie of cocaine. Turns out, the North Carolina motor vehicle code only requires one working brake light, though the sta...

Yesterday, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a defendant's conviction for resisting and obstructing a police officer and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial, holding that the prosecution is required to prove, as an element of the offense, that the officer's actions in effectuating an arrest are lawful. In People v Quinn , Docket No. 309600 (May 29, 2014) , Judge Wilder, writing the unanimous opinion, also held that the Michigan Supreme Court's holding in People v Moreno , 491 Mich 38; 814 NW2d 624 (2012), finding that a defendant had the right to resist an unlawful arrest in his own home, was retroactive as applied to Quinn's case. An Emmet Township Public Safety Officer testified that she was on routine patrol at 1:00am in an area that had recently suffered sever storm damage and was without power. She testified about thefts occurring in the area during the blackout and to seeing a car parked in a lot near a salon. She approached to investig...

Yesterday, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v Jarrud Payne , Docket No. 314816 , in a case where the trial judge sentenced the defendant to a 30 year to 50 year term of imprisonment in a case where the defendant was convicted of an offense carrying a 25-year mandatory minimum.  In a per curiam opinion, the Court reversed on the sentencing issue and remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing. Payne, 17 1/2 years old at the time of the offense, was convicted following a jury trial of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree where the victim was less than 13 years old.  The victim, a five-year-old boy, testified Payne had "stuck his pee-pee in my butt and it hurt." Payne, when confronted with the allegations by sheriff's deputies, initially denied the allegations but subsequently admitted to doing the act. The defense argued Payne, after suffering from years of mental health issues, was legally insane at the time of the offense. ...

Tomorrow, at 10:00am, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that I believe will have a significant impact for those of us who regularly practice in trial courts.  In Navarette v California , Docket No. 12-9490, the Court is presented with this question: Does the Fourth Amendment require an officer who receives an anonymous tip regarding a drunken or reckless driver to corroborate dangerous driving before stopping the vehicle? Lorenzo and Jose Navarette were stopped by officers from the California Highway Patrol after the CHP received a tip from another agency who had gotten a 911 call from a motorist who called to say a silver pickup truck had just run someone off the road.  The CHP stopped the truck 19 minutes after the call came in and after following the truck for five miles, observing no illegal or suspicious driving.  The officers quickly detected the odor of marijuana coming from the interior of the truck and searched it, finding a la...