Michigan Supreme Court Blog

Yesterday, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Farrin Lee Felton after the Court determined that the trial court in Kalkaska County had impermissibly allowed the introduction of MRE 404(b) evidence in Felton's drug delivery trial. After the defendant and two others were pulled over by the the police, the officers arrested the driver, Johnson, for driving on a suspended license. Upon searching him, the officers discovered a quantity of cocaine and heroin secreted in his underwear.  Johnson was charged with two counts of possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams.  He worked out a deal with the prosecution where his two 20-year felonies would be reduced to simple possession with a sentence agreement of probation under Sec. 7411, in exchange for his testimony that Felton, the back seat passenger, was the person actually guilty of possessing with intent to deliver the drugs and that he had given them to Johnson to hide when the trio was pulled ove

Much has been written and talked about in the media regarding the recent United States Supreme Court's decision in Carpenter v United States and I would never presume to weigh in any more succinctly or insightfully than Professor Orin Kerr, Frances R. and John J. Duggan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Southern California Gould School of Law.  Therefore, I will simply cite to his learned analysis of this monumental decision.  The question of the scope of the Government's ability to seek cell site data without the benefit of a search warrant is still in question, but should anyone need any extensive analysis of the opinion, Professor Kerr's analysis can be found here .  My  congratulations  go out to Detroit Attorney Harold Gurewitz for his persistence in preserving the issue and well-deserved victory.  Enjoy.

On January 24, in the case of People of the State of Michigan v Boban Temelkoski , the Michigan Supreme Court held the state’s sex offender registration scheme  unconstitutional  on due process grounds.  Temelkoski had pleaded guilty under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act with the expectation that no collateral consequences would attach to the disposition if he successfully completed its conditions.  The Court emphasized, " The statute in effect at the time of defendant’s plea further provided that “[a]n assignment of an individual to the status of youthful trainee as provided in this chapter is not a conviction for a crime, and the individual assigned to the status of youthful trainee shall not suffer a civil disability or loss of right or privilege following his or her release from that status because of his or her assignment as a youthful trainee.”    However, several years later a registration requirement was enacted and applied retroactively to his case.  Because the court dec