Selected Order Summaries - July, 2018

Recent Supreme Court Applications/Oral Argument
on Applications Granted
 
 
Mini-Oral Argument on Application Granted

 
People v Paul Betts, Jr, MSC No. 148981 (COA No. 319642), MOAA granted June 27, 2018.

Issues: (1) whether the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) amount to “punishment”; (2) whether defendant’s conviction for failing to register under SORA is an ex post facto punishment where the requirements were enacted after defendant committed the listed offense. Oral argument will be scheduled for the same session with People v Snyder (MSC No. 153696) and People v Tucker (MSC No. 152798). Mr. Betts is represented by SADO’s Jeanice Dagher-Margosian.

People v Diallo Corley, MSC No. 155276 (COA No. 328532), MOAA granted June 29, 2018.

Issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence and erred in concluding the newly discovered evidence would not make a different result probable on retrial. 

People v James David Urban, MSC No. 156458 (COA No. 332734), MOAA granted July 6, 2018.

Issues: (1) whether People v Coy, 243 Mich App 283 (2000), set forth the appropriate standard for the admission of a potential DNA match when it held that “some qualitative or quantitative interpretation must accompany evidence of a potential match,” (2) if not, what standard should govern the admission of a potential DNA match, and (3) whether, under the appropriate standard, the potential DNA match in this case was properly admitted where the expert indicated it was supported to a “reasonable degree of scientific certainty.” Mr. Urban is represented by SADO’s Peter Van Hoek.

People v Raymond Charles Pierson, MSC No. 156720 (COA No. 332500), MOAA granted July 13, 2018.

Issues: (1) whether defendant was denied the right to a fair trial when the trial court informed the jury that his confession to police had already been reviewed by the court and had been held admissible, and (2) to the extent that the trial court erred, whether that error was harmless. If the trial court determines that Mr. Pierson is indigent, SADO will be appointed as his counsel if feasible. 

by John Zevalking
Associate Editor