Cases for Argument- Summaries of Applications/Oral Argument on Applications Granted – January 2019

The following cases are scheduled for argument before the Michigan Supreme Court at its session, January 23-24, 2019. 

CALENDAR CASE

People v Joel Eusevio Davis, Docket No. 156406 (to be argued at the same session as Price, Docket No. 156180)

The Court granted leave to appeal to address (1) whether the defendant’s convictions under MCL 750.81a(3) and MCL 750.84 violate double jeopardy; (2) whether MCL 750.81a and MCL 750.84 contain contradictory and mutually exclusive provisions such that the Legislature did not intend a defendant to be convicted of both crimes for the same conduct; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in recognizing a rule against mutually exclusive verdicts in Michigan; and (4) whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying this rule to the facts of this case. Mr. Davis is represented by SADO’s Jacqueline McCann

ORAL ARGUMENT ON APPLICATIONS

People v Dorian Lamarr Price, Docket No. 156180 (to be argued at the same session as Davis, Docket No. 156406)

The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether the defendant’s convictions under MCL 750.82 and MCL 750.84 violate double jeopardy; (2) whether MCL 750.82 and MCL 750.84 contain contradictory and mutually exclusive provisions such that the Legislature did not intend a defendant to be convicted of both crimes for the same conduct; (3) whether the Court of Appeals in People v Davis, 320 Mich App 484 (2017), erred in recognizing a rule against mutually exclusive verdicts in Michigan; and (4) whether that rule is applicable to the facts of this case. Mr. Price is represented by SADO’s Douglas Baker.

People v Eric Lemontee Beck, Docket No. 152934 (to be argued at the same session as Dixon-Bey, Docket No. 156746)

The Court directed the parties to address (1) the appropriate basis for distinguishing between permissible trial court consideration of acquitted conduct and an impermissible “independent finding of defendant’s guilt” by a trial court on an acquitted charge; and (2) where the jury acquitted defendant of murder, whether the trial court abused its discretion by departing from the sentencing guidelines range based on its finding by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant committed the killing. 

People v Dawn Marie Dixon-Bey, Docket No. 156746 (to be argued at the same session as Beck, Docket No. 152934)

The Court directed the parties to address (1) to what extent the sentencing guidelines should be considered to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in applying the principle of proportionality; and (2) whether, when a jury convicted the defendant of second-degree murder, the trial court abused its discretion in applying the principle of proportionality if it either (a) sentenced the defendant according to an independent finding that she committed first-degree murder or (b) departed upward from the sentencing guidelines for second-degree murder based on facts established by a preponderance of the evidence that the jury did not find were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Ms. Dixon-Bey is represented by MAACS’s Gary Strauss.

People v Harold Lamont Walker, Docket No. 155198

The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether the defendant is entitled to a new trial based on the trial judge’s comments to the jury in lieu of the standard “deadlocked jury” instruction; (2) whether OV 19 was improperly assigned 10 points for interference with the administration of justice; and (3) if OV 19 was misscored, whether the defendant is entitled to resentencing before a different judge based on the judge’s verbal exchange with the defendant at sentencing. Mr. Walker is represented by SADO’s Adrienne Young.

People v Diallo Corley, Docket No. 155276

The Court directed the parties to address whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to grant a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence, and in particular, whether the trial court erred in concluding that the newly discovered evidence would not make a different result probable on retrial.

People v David Ross Ames, Docket No. 156077

The Court directed the parties to address whether MCL 769.34(10) has been rendered invalid by the decision in Lockridge, to the extent that the statute requires the Court of Appeals to affirm sentences that fall within the applicable guidelines range “absent an error in scoring the sentencing guidelines or inaccurate information relied upon in determining the defendant’s sentence.” Mr. Ames is represented by SADO’s Marilena David-Martin.

People v Kelli Marie Worth-McBride, Docket No. 156430 (to be argued at the same session as Lee, Docket No. 157176)

The Court directed the parties to address (1) whether a parent/defendant, either as a principal or as an aider and abettor, can be convicted of first-degree child abuse or second-degree murder when a child suffers serious physical harm or death as a result of the parent/defendant leaving the child in the care of the other parent with knowledge that the other parent previously injured the child and that serious physical harm or death would be caused by leaving the child with the other parent; and (2) if so, whether the evidence is sufficient in this case to establish the defendant’s knowledge that serious physical harm or death would be caused by leaving the child with the other parent. Ms. Worth-McBride is represented by SADO’s Christine Pagac.

People v James Lee, Docket No. 157176 (to be argued at the same session as Worth-McBride, Docket No. 156430)

On the prosecution’s application, the Court directed the parties to address whether there is sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed an “act,” as that term is used in MCL 750.136b(3)(b). Mr. Lee is represented by SADO’s Jason Eggert.

Full case summaries and the briefs filed by the parties can be found at:
https://courts.michigan.gov/courts/michigansupremecourt/oral-arguments/2018-2019/pages/default.aspx

Mini-Oral Argument on
Application Granted

People v Antjuan Pierre Jackson, MSC No. 156502 (COA No. 332307), MOAA granted November 7, 2018.

Issue: Whether the provision in MCL 777.19(1) that the sentencing guidelines only apply to an attempt to commit an enumerated offense “if the attempted violation is a felony” requires that the offense the defendant attempted to commit be a felony, or the attempt conviction itself be a felony, for purposes of scoring OV 13, MCL 777.43(1)(c).

People v Shae Lynn Mullins, MSC No. 157116 (COA No. 334098), MOAA granted November 16, 2018. 

Issues: (1) whether MCL 722.633(5), which criminalizes making a false report of felony child abuse, applies to non-mandatory reporters; (2) whether the phrase “intentionally makes a false report of child abuse or neglect” is broad enough to encompass a circumstance in which a child is intentionally enlisted for the purpose of falsely accusing another of abuse or neglect; and (3) whether MCL 722.633(5) must be read in light of the common-law doctrine of the innocent agent. 

People v Tiffany Lynn Reichard, MSC No. 157688 (COA 340732), MOAA granted November 21, 2018.

Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that duress is not an available defense to the charge felony murder under any circumstances. 

People v Travis Travon Sammons, MSC No. 156189 (COA No. 332190), MOAA granted November 21, 2018.

Issues: (1) whether the show-up identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive; (2) if so, whether the identification was nonetheless sufficiently reliable so that it was properly admitted; and (3) if improperly admitted, whether it is more probable than not that the erroneous admission of the identification through the detective’s testimony affected the outcome of the trial. 


by John Zevalking
Associate Editor