Summary of Applications & Oral Argument on Applications Granted

Mini-Oral Argument on Application Granted

People v Armond Pinson. MSC No. 165272 (COA No. 356624), MOAA granted May 24, 2023

Issue: Indeterminate Sentence for First-Time Felony Offenders

The Court directed the parties to address “whether MCL 769.8 requires an indeterminate prison sentence for first-time felony offenders where the offense provides prison as a possible punishment, or whether the statute instead requires that, when a trial court decides to impose a prison sentence, that sentence must be indeterminate.” 

People v Karl Derell Butler, MSC No. 165162 (COA No. 359849), MOAA granted May 24, 2023

Issue: In Camera Review to Determine Admissibility of Prior False Accusations

The Court directed the parties to address: “(1) the appropriate standard for determining whether the defendant made a sufficient offer of proof to support holding an in camera evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of the complainant’s alleged prior false accusation of nonconsensual sexual acts, see People v Hackett, 421 Mich 338, 350-352 (1984); see also People v Williams, 191 Mich App 269 (1991); (2) the defendant’s burden of proof in establishing the falsity of the complainant’s prior accusation against a different person that she was subjected to nonconsensual sexual acts, rendering the rape-shield statute inapplicable to evidence of the prior accusation, see Hackett, 421 Mich at 348; (3) whether barring evidence of the November 2008 sexual assault allegation in this case would constitute a denial of the defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation or the right to present a defense, see People v Arenda, 416 Mich 1 (1982); and (4) to what extent the Michigan Rules of Evidence apply when a trial court is determining what evidence of an alleged false allegation may be presented to the jury.”

People v William Edward Neilly, MSC No. 165185 (COA No. 358043), MOAA granted June 2, 2023

Issue: Restitution/Punishment/Ex Post Facto Clause

The Court directed the parties to address: “(1) whether restitution constitutes punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution, US Const, art I, § 10, and the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 10; (2) whether application of the current versions of the restitution statutes rather than the statutes in effect when the defendant was convicted ‘disadvantage[d]’ him for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clauses, Weaver v Graham, 450 US 24, 29 (1981); see also People v Lueth, 253 Mich App 670, 693 (2002); and (3) if there is an Ex Post Facto Clause violation, what is the appropriate remedy?”

People v Maher Mohammad Ghunaim, MSC No. 165109 (COA No. 359167), MOAA granted June 2, 2023

Issue: Custodial Interrogation/Miranda

The Court directed the parties to address: “(1) whether the defendant was subjected to a ‘custodial interrogation’ without being advised of his rights under Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966), when he was a hospitalized patient; and (2) whether the defendant’s statements were ‘freely and voluntarily made,’ People v Cipriano, 431 Mich 315, 334 (1988).”

John Zevalking
Associate Editor