Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Ryan Bylsma, a registered primary caregiver under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA), was charged with manufacturing marijuana in violation of state law. Defendant moved to dismiss the charge, asserting that he was the registered primary caregiver of two registered, qualifying patients, and was allowed to possess the numerous plants ultimately seized by police from a building that belonged to other registered primary caregivers and registered patients whom defendant offered help in growing and cultivating the plants. The trial court denied defendant's motion, holding that the statute has a strict limit of how many plants a registered caregiver may possess, and allows only one person to have access to the facility in which the plants were grown. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the MMMA provides a registered primary caregiver immunity when growing plants collectively with other registered primary caregivers and their qualifying patients. The Court held that a portion of the MMMA did not contemplate collective action, and as such, defendant was not entitled to its grant of immunity from arrest, prosecution or penalty. Though defendant's argument failed with regard to immunity, the Court determined that the appellate court erred in not considering defendant's affirmative defense argument under a separate section of the MMMA. The Court reversed that portion of the appellate court's decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Michigan v. Bylsma" on Justia Law

Defendant Shawn Thomas Brown pled guilty to second-degree home invasion as a second-offense habitual offender. He was not informed by the court of his maximum possible sentence as an habitual offender before the plea was accepted. Rather, Defendant had been informed that the maximum penalty for the home-invasion offense was 15 years in prison, but he was ultimately sentenced to a prison term of 6 years and 3 months to 22 years and 6 months in accordance with the habitual offender enhancement. Defendant did not object at sentencing, but later moved to withdraw his plea or for resentencing, which the court denied. Defendant appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that there was a clear defect in the plea proceeding in this case, and defendant’s plea was not an understanding plea as required by MCR 6.302(B)(2) because he was not properly informed of the potential maximum sentence for second-degree home invasion as enhanced by his second-offense habitual-offender status before his plea was accepted. Accordingly the case was remanded for further proceedings.

These three cases involved the felony of failure to pay court-ordered child support (felony nonsupport) under MCL 750.165 and the rule of "Michigan v. Adams." The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the constitutionality of the Court of Appeals' ruling in "Adams" and now clarified that, while inability to pay is not a defense to felony nonsupport pursuant to MCL 750.165, "Adams" does not preclude criminal defendants from proffering the common-law defense of impossibility. The Court endorsed the well-established common-law defense of impossibility as the proper defense to felony nonsupport. "Consistently with the Legislature's expressed intent in the child support statutes, [the Court] believe[d] that to avoid conviction for felony nonsupport, parents should be required to have done everything possible to provide for their child and to have arranged their finances in a way that prioritized their parental responsibility so that the child does not become a public charge."

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether newly discovered impeachment evidence could constitute grounds for a new trial and, if so, under what circumstances. Defendant sought a retrial on the basis of newly discovered impeachment evidence. The trial court and the Court of Appeals concluded that this evidence could not be used as a basis for granting a new trial because, in part, it was impeachment evidence. The Court of Appeals also concluded that the evidence did not warrant a new trial because if it were admitted on retrial, there was no reasonable chance of a different result. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that impeachment evidence may be grounds for a new trial if it satisfies the four-part test set forth in "Michigan v. Cress." Furthermore, the Court held that a material, exculpatory connection must exist between the newly discovered evidence and significantly important evidence presented at trial. It may be of a general character and need not contradict specific testimony at trial. Also, the evidence must make a different result probable on retrial. Accordingly, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded this case to the trial court for determination of whether the newly discovered evidence satisfies "Cress."

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether expert witness testimony regarding interrogation techniques and psychological factors claimed to generate false confessions was admissible under MRE 702 and MRE 403 and whether exclusion of this testimony violated the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. The circuit court excluded the testimony of two experts regarding the occurrence of false confessions and the police interrogation techniques likely to generate them as well as the psychological characteristics of defendant that allegedly made him more susceptible to these techniques. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the expert testimony regarding the published literature on false confessions and police interrogations on the basis of its determination that the testimony was not reliable, even though the subject of the proposed testimony was beyond the common knowledge of the average juror. The Court also held that the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding the proffered testimony regarding defendant's psychological characteristics because it failed to consider this evidence separately from the properly excluded general expert testimony and therefore failed to properly apply both MRE 702 and MRE 403 to that evidence. Accordingly, the Court remanded this case to the circuit court for it to determine whether evidence of defendant's psychological characteristics was sufficiently reliable for admissibility under MRE 702. Furthermore, the Court held that the circuit court's application of MRE 702 did not violate defendant's constitutional right to present a defense.

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Michigan State University (MSU) Ordinance 15.05 is facially unconstitutional. This case arose from a parking citation that Defendant Jared Rapp received when his car was parked in an MSU parking structure. On the day the citation was issued, MSU parking enforcement employee Ricardo Rego was working on campus. Defendant confronted Rego and asked if Rego was the one who had issued the citation. Defendant was shouting, which led Rego to believe that defendant was acting aggressively. Rego got into his service vehicle and called the campus police. Approximately 10 to 15 minutes passed before the police arrived. During that time, Rego sat in his service vehicle and completed the process for having an adjacent vehicle towed, while defendant stood outside the service vehicle and took pictures of Rego with a camera phone. Defendant was charged with the misdemeanor offense of violating MSU Ordinance 15.05. A district court jury convicted defendant of violating the ordinance. On appeal, the circuit court reversed the conviction on the basis that the ordinance was unconstitutionally overbroad on its face. The circuit court also granted defendant’s motion brought pursuant to MCR 7.101(O) to tax costs against the prosecution. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s conclusion that the ordinance is unconstitutional under "City of Houston, Texas v Hill," (482 US 451 (1987)). Because the Supreme Court agreed with the circuit court’s analysis and concluded that the language in the ordinance making it an offense to “disrupt the normal activity” of a protected person is facially overbroad as articulated by the United States Supreme Court in "Hill," the Court reversed the portion of the Court of Appeals’ judgment pertaining to the constitutionality of MSU Ordinance 15.05, and reinstated the circuit court’s decision with regard to this issue to the extent that the circuit court held that the quoted language was facially unconstitutional. The Court affirmed that portion of the appellate court's judgment that held costs could not be assessed to the prosecution in criminal matters.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a Michigan Department of State (DOS) certificate of mailing is testimonial in nature, and whether its admission without accompanying witness testimony violated the Confrontation Clause of the state and federal constitutions. The DOS generated the certificate of mailing to certify that it had mailed a notice of driver suspension to a group of suspended drivers. The prosecution sought to introduce this certificate to prove the notice element of the charged crime, driving while license revoked or suspended (DWLS), second offense. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that a DOS certificate of mailing is not testimonial because the circumstances under which it was generated would not lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial. Instead, the circumstances reflected that the creation of a certificate of mailing, which is necessarily generated before the commission of any crime, is a function of the legislatively authorized administrative role of the DOS independent from any investigatory or prosecutorial purpose. Therefore, the DOS certificate of mailing may be admitted into evidence absent accompanying witness testimony without violating the Confrontation Clause.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Defendant-Appellant Joseph Vaughn was entitled to a new trial because the circuit court closed the courtroom during voir dire in violation of defendant's constitutional rights. In 2002, Defendant was arrested on weapons and attempted murder charges when he shot at a retired police officer and a neighbor. Upon review of the circuit court record, the Supreme Court held that a defendant's right to a public trial is subject to the forfeiture rule articulated in "Michigan v Carines" (597 NW2d 130 (1999)) and that the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that defendant's failure to assert his public trial right necessarily "forecloses the later grant of relief." In applying the "Carines" forfeiture rule to defendant's appeal, however, the Court concluded that defendant was not entitled to a new trial because he did not establish that his forfeited claim of error "seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Furthermore, the Court concluded that defendant was not entitled to a new trial on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion to the extent that it was inconsistent with this opinion, and affirmed defendant's convictions.

This case presented the question of whether Defendant Ramon Bryant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community. A fair-cross-section claim under the Sixth Amendment requires a defendant to make a prima facie case as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in "Duren v Missouri," (439 U.S. 357 (1979)). The Court of Appeals concluded that defendant had satisfied the three Duren prongs, establishing a violation of his right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community, and granted defendant a new trial. In its review, the Michigan Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred because defendant failed to show under the second prong that the representation of African-Americans in venires from which juries were selected was not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of African-Americans in the community. The Court held "that when applying all the relevant tests for evaluating the representation data, a court must examine the composition of jury pools or venires over time using the most reliable data available to determine whether representation of a distinct group is fair and reasonable. Having considered the results of these tests using the most reliable data set, which included the composition of jury pools or venires over a three-month period, [the Court concluded] that defendant failed to show that the representation of African-Americans was not fair and reasonable."

In two consolidated cases, the issue central to both involved MCL 768.27a(1). In relevant part, in a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of committing a listed offense against a minor, evidence that the defendant committed another listed offense against a minor is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it may be relevant. Upon review of these cases, the Supreme Court concluded that MCL 768.27a "irreconcilably" conflicted with the Michigan Rules of Evidence 404(b). Further, the Court held that evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a remains subject to MRE 403, which provided that a court may exclude relevant evidence if the danger of unfair prejudice, among other considerations, outweighs the evidence's probative value. "In applying the balancing test in MRE 403 to evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a, . . . courts must weigh the propensity inference in favor of the evidence's probative value rather than its prejudicial effect."