David Sawyer

The case involved a jury conviction of defendant Alphonso D. Gaines for assault on a prison employee while he was incarcerated, along with a habitual offender charge, resulting in a sentence consecutive to his existing term. Defendant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence because the prosecution failed to prove his imprisonment was lawful as required by the statute. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the clear statutory language requires proof of lawful imprisonment beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not provided at trial since the prosecution offered no evidence beyond the fact of imprisonment itself. The court further ruled that double jeopardy precluded retrial due to the evidentiary insufficiency.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a beneficiary's claim for benefits under an accidental death insurance policy after the insured died from alcohol poisoning with a blood alcohol level of 0.40 percent. The insurer denied coverage based on policy exclusions for voluntary use of any drug, medicine, or sedative and for intentionally self-inflicted injury. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary disposition to the plaintiff, holding that the accidental nature of the death must be evaluated from the decedent's subjective perspective, under which he did not intend to injure himself by drinking, and that any ambiguity in the term "injury" must be resolved in favor of coverage. The court also applied the reasonable-expectations doctrine, concluding that a reasonable policyholder would anticipate coverage for accidental death from alcohol poisoning.

business & regulatory

In People v. Yeoman, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of inserting an instrument into a money changer with intent to steal under MCL 752.811(a) and of being a habitual offender with three prior felonies under MCL 769.12, resulting in a sentence of four to fifteen years. The court addressed whether evidence obtained after a police stop of the defendant's vehicle should have been suppressed, finding that Officer Anderson had reasonable and articulable suspicion under the totality of circumstances—including the late hour, the occupants' suspicious behavior around the money changer, abandoned quarters, and the officer's prior experience with similar frauds—to justify a Terry investigative stop. The stop led to information confirming a felony, supporting a warrantless arrest, and the subsequent search was valid incident to that arrest. The court affirmed the conviction but remanded solely for the administrative task of preparing a sentencing information report, as required even for habitual offenders to aid guideline development.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Griffis's appeal of his jury convictions for receiving and concealing stolen property over $100 and for concealing or misrepresenting the identity of a motor vehicle with intent to mislead, arising from his possession of a stolen Mercedes-Benz with altered VINs that he had insured under an alias. The trial court sentenced him to probation, a $5,000 fine, and over $42,000 in restitution. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant's alias or in denying a mistrial motion, no double jeopardy violation because the offenses involved distinct elements and legislative intent, and no merit to claims regarding prior bad acts evidence. It modified the sentence by reducing the fine to the $2,500 statutory maximum but found the restitution issue unpreserved for review.

criminal lawprocedure

In this no-fault insurance dispute, plaintiff Joyce Shanafelt sought benefits from defendant Allstate after slipping on ice and injuring her leg while entering her parked truck after dining at a restaurant. The circuit court granted summary disposition to plaintiffs on liability, finding the injury occurred while entering the vehicle under the no-fault act's exception for parked vehicles in MCL 500.3106(1)(c), and awarded damages and attorney fees despite the coordinated health insurer having paid medical expenses. On appeal, the court affirmed the liability ruling and fee award, reasoning that the undisputed facts established plaintiff was entering the vehicle at the time of injury so that coverage applied and the denial was unreasonable, but vacated the judgment to add statutory and penalty interest as required by law.

business & regulatoryhealthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case involved an appeal challenging a probate court order that terminated a father's parental rights to his son under Michigan's Adoption Code, MCL 710.51(6), to permit adoption by the child's stepfather. The lower court had terminated the rights after examining the two-year period before the father's incarceration, finding he had failed to provide support or contact despite ability to do so. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute must be applied as written and requires examination of the two-year period immediately preceding the filing of the termination petition. Because the father was incarcerated during that period and thus lacked the ability to support or visit the child, the grounds for termination were not met. The court noted that the father's incarceration placed him outside the statute's intended scope for stepparent adoptions.

family law

The case involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to breaking and entering an unoccupied building with intent to commit larceny, conditioned on appealing the denial of motions to suppress evidence obtained after a police stop. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the initial stop of the defendant's van was lawful under the Terry stop doctrine because the defendant's evasive driving created reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Although the stop was initially for investigative purposes without probable cause, the defendant's flight provided the basis for the stop, leading to his arrest on outstanding warrants, subsequent voluntary statements after Miranda warnings, and consent to search the van, which yielded incriminating evidence. The court rejected the argument that the evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree, concluding that the stop was not unlawful.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Livery Clark's convictions for breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with intent to commit a felony and assault with a dangerous weapon, arising from an altercation at the home of his girlfriend Bessie Hornes, along with his guilty plea as a habitual offender. On appeal, Clark challenged the prosecutor's alleged intimidation of Hornes regarding her testimony, the admission of his prior misdemeanor conviction for impeachment, evidentiary rulings on hearsay and self-defense, and claims of prosecutorial misconduct. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that Hornes was not intimidated and remained willing to testify truthfully despite her reluctance, that the prior conviction was properly admitted under the balancing test as probative of veracity and dissimilar to the charged offenses, and that any errors or misconduct did not deny Clark a fair trial. Other claims, including improper rejection of certain testimony, were deemed harmless.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Old Order Amish defendants ticketed under Michigan law for failing to display a required slow-moving vehicle emblem on their horse-drawn buggies and equipment, which they argued conflicted with their religious beliefs against using symbolic man-made protections. The district court declined to enforce the tickets based on free exercise protections under the First Amendment and Michigan Constitution, the circuit court reversed in favor of enforcement citing public safety interests, and the Court of Appeals reversed to hold that the state had not met its burden. The court reasoned that the defendants' objections were rooted in sincere religious convictions, the statute imposed a burden on free exercise, and the prosecution offered no trial evidence of a compelling state interest or that alternatives like reflector tape would be inadequate. The opinion stressed that the holding was limited to the lack of proofs in these cases and left open the possibility of different outcomes with proper evidence in future proceedings.

religious libertycriminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a challenge by cherry producers to a 1982 referendum renewing the Michigan Cherry Commodity marketing program and increasing assessments under the Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act. The Director of Agriculture held a public hearing, issued findings supporting the proposal, and conducted an initial referendum using ballots referencing volume 'sold,' followed by a second referendum with ballots referencing volume 'produced' after concerns about potential misunderstanding. The trial court upheld the Director's findings and the validity of the referendums. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Director had authority to issue a corrective second ballot with substantial compliance to statutory timelines and that the findings were supported by substantial evidence on the record, including testimony from the hearing favoring the proposal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved defendant Ellis, who was charged with kidnapping and first-degree criminal sexual conduct against his ex-wife based on events in December 1985 but was convicted after a jury trial of felonious assault and being a fourth-felony offender, resulting in a sentence of ten to fifteen years in prison. On appeal, the court addressed claims regarding the admission of the complainant's statements to neighbors and a parole officer as excited utterances, the application of spousal privilege to compel her testimony, the sufficiency of evidence for the underlying charges, the propriety of instructing the jury on felonious assault as a lesser cognate offense, and the validity of the habitual offender conviction. The court affirmed the felonious assault conviction, finding the hearsay statements properly admitted, no violation of privilege, sufficient evidence of forcible confinement, and adequate notice for the lesser offense instruction. However, it reversed the fourth-felony offender conviction under People v. Stoudemire because the prior convictions from 1973, though from separate transactions, occurred on the same date and thus counted as only one prior conviction, remanding for entry of a third-felony offender conviction and resentencing.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

The case involved a dispute over a mortgage lien granted to the plaintiff in a 1979 divorce judgment on the former marital home, which was later transferred through a bank foreclosure process involving quitclaim deeds to the defendant. The plaintiff sued for foreclosure after the property changed hands, claiming the conveyance triggered the mortgage debt becoming due. The trial court granted summary disposition to the plaintiff under MCR 2.116(C)(10), and the appeals court affirmed, reasoning that the defendant's failure to respond to requests for admission conclusively established key facts, the lien was never extinguished by the quitclaim deeds, and the property could be sold to satisfy the remaining $15,000 balance.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

In this consolidated appeal, defendants Harrison and Pegram were convicted after a jury trial of breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with intent to commit larceny and later pled guilty as fourth-felony offenders. The court affirmed Pegram's conviction and sentence, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel in the handling of his alibi defense or advice regarding testimony. The court reversed Harrison's conviction, holding that his arrest lacked probable cause because it was based solely on his presence in Pegram's car, which was listed on a police hot sheet, and that this unlawful arrest tainted the subsequent lineup identification without an independent basis. The opinion also addressed but rejected arguments regarding delayed arraignment and the bindover decision, noting they would not warrant dismissal even if improper.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned the authority of the Genesee Circuit Court to disqualify the Genesee County Prosecutor's office from handling drug charges against defendant Jonathan P. Doyle in district courts due to a conflict of interest. On rehearing, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed its prior ruling and held that the circuit court possessed such authority. The court reasoned that MCL 49.160(2) expressly allows the circuit court, upon finding a disqualification, to appoint a special prosecutor to perform duties in the district court or other courts within the county until the prosecutor can serve.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff's breach of contract claim against the Department of Mental Health after her husband died by suicide three days after release from a state-run clinic, alleging the clinic failed to provide appropriate care as promised in his admission application. The trial court granted summary disposition to the defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(10), and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that no enforceable contract existed because the department had a preexisting statutory duty under MCL 330.1810 to provide mental health services to those in need, regardless of payment, which meant there was no consideration to support an implied contract. The opinion noted that while some facts might support both tort and contract claims, the absence of a valid contract here meant the claim was purely a tort matter precluded by governmental immunity.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case concerned a second mortgagee who sued the City of Pontiac after it demolished a building securing her promissory note without personally notifying her of the nuisance hearings or demolition order. The plaintiff argued that the lack of notice violated her right to due process. The circuit court granted the city's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the city had complied with the notice provisions of the Housing Law of Michigan, MCL 125.540, which require notice only to owners or parties listed on tax records, and that a mortgagee holds only a lien rather than an estate in land and therefore has no statutory or constitutional entitlement to notice absent legislative action. The court also rejected the claim that the housing law had been repealed.

propertyprocedurecivil rights

In this case, defendant Kim Williams pleaded guilty in Oakland Circuit Court to one count of unarmed robbery, two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny, and two counts of being a fourth-offense habitual offender. He sought to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, which argued that his arrest lacked probable cause, but the prosecutor had refused to allow a conditional guilty plea that would have preserved the issue. The court held that under People v New, a guilty plea waives appellate challenges relating only to the state's ability to prove factual guilt, as opposed to rights that would bar the state from prosecuting at all; because the suppression claim fell into the former category, it was subsumed by the unconditional pleas. The court therefore affirmed the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

The case arose after a child suffered permanent brain damage during an emergency Caesarean section, leading her parents to sue the Ingham County Health Department clinic for negligence and breach of contract related to prenatal care. Negligence claims against the clinic were dismissed on governmental immunity grounds, and the appeal focused on two counts alleging breach of an express or implied contract under which the mother agreed to follow medical directions in exchange for appropriate care. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for the clinic under MCR 2.116(C)(8), concluding that the complaint failed to allege facts showing adequate consideration because the mother's promise to follow directions was not an enforceable obligation of value to the clinic. The court held that lack of mutuality in this context meant no valid contract existed to support the third-party beneficiary claim on behalf of the child.

healthcarefamily lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Berry sued multiple defendants after being injured when Mitchell Kipf intentionally rammed his vehicle into Berry's car; Kipf had been drinking and was using a car owned by defendant Juanita Hatcher, who had consented to his use. Berry asserted an owner-liability claim against Hatcher under Michigan's civil liability act based solely on her ownership and consent, without alleging negligent entrustment or other independent fault. The trial court granted Hatcher's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) for failure to state a claim, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the statute creates owner liability only for injuries from negligent operation of the vehicle with the owner's consent, not for intentional torts, and that statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed to impose liability only within their clear terms.

torts & liability

This case involves consolidated appeals by the Genesee County Prosecutor from circuit court orders disqualifying Prosecutor Robert E. Weiss and his entire staff from prosecuting drug delivery and assault cases due to conflicts of interest, along with appointments of special prosecutors under MCL 49.160. The conflicts stemmed from the chief assistant prosecutor's familial ties—one defendant being his brother-in-law in the drug cases and the victim being his brother in the assault cases—creating an appearance of impropriety even without evidence of actual misconduct. The Court of Appeals affirmed the disqualifications and special prosecutor appointments for the specific cases before the trial court, reasoning that the relationships and the assistant's supervisory role required recusal of the entire office to avoid impropriety, but vacated the orders extending to unrelated cases not before the court and the recusal of a police investigator, as the statute limits authority to matters in the respective court.

criminal lawprocedure