Cases for Argument – May, 2021

The following criminal cases are scheduled for argument before the Michigan Supreme Court by Zoom on May 5, 2021:


People v Kellie Nichole Stock, Docket No. 160968
Cocaine Metabolite as Evidence of Intoxication

The Court directed the parties to address whether: (1) under People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184, 204-212 (2010), the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the defendant had cocaine in her system at the time of the crash based only on the presence of a cocaine metabolite in the defendant’s urine; and (2) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the use of cocaine metabolites to establish intoxication. The case is set for argument on May 5, 2021, at 10:00am. Ms. Stock is represented by MAACS roster attorney Ian Kierpaul.

People v Shane Jeremy Hawkins, Docket No. 161243 

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Court directed the parties to address whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for trial defense counsel’s failure to object to Detective Boczar’s testimony, the outcome of this trial would have been different. Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 694 (1984). The case is set for argument on May 5, 2021, at 10:30am. Mr. Hawkins is represented by SADO’s Adrienne Young.

People v Stephen Michael Bieszka, Docket No. 161838

Consent to Sexual Acts by 14-year-old

The Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the trial court clearly erred by determining that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the victim consented to the sexual acts at issue; and (2) whether the 14-year-old victim was legally capable of consenting to the sexual acts in any event. See MCL 750.520d(1)(a) (“A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree if the person engages in sexual penetration with another person and if any of the following circumstances exist . . . (a) That other person is at least 13 years of age and under 16 years of age.”); People v Starks, 473 Mich 227, 230, 235 (2005) (“[C]onsent must be given by one who is legally capable of giving consent to the act,” and “[b]ecause a thirteen-year-old child cannot consent to sexual penetration, consent by such a victim is not a defense to the crime of assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct involving sexual penetration.”); cf. MCL 28.722(w)(iv) (“This subparagraph does not apply if the court determines that the victim consented to the conduct constituting the violation, that the victim was at least 13 years of age but less than 16 years of age at the time of the offense, and that the individual is not more than 4 years older than the victim.”). The case is set for argument on May 5, 2021, at 12:00pm.

The Supreme Court’s case summaries and the briefs filed by the parties are available at

Watch live streaming arguments at

by John Zevalking
Associate Editor