Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

On Wednesday, December 2, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court denied five applications for leave to appeal, denied two prisoners’ motions to waive their filing fees, closed one case after the appellant asked to withdraw its application for leave to appeal as moot, and administratively closed two cases for failure of the appellants to pay the required filing fees. The Court also took substantive action in two criminal cases, People v. Wade and People v. Stockman.

contentpilot/introduction

In People v. Wade, Case No. 139327, the Court peremptorily reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the defendant’s convictions for involuntary manslaughter and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (“felony firearm”). In Wade, the defendant was charged with first degree murder and felony firearm. Following his trial, the jury was provided with oral jury instructions as well as a jury verdict form. Defendant’s counsel objected to the verdict form and argued it was improper because the jury was not given the option of finding the defendant generally not guilty, or not guilty of the lesser-included offenses. Rather, as to Count I, the jury verdict form allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty or not guilty of first-degree murder. The jury was then given the option of finding the defendant guilty of second-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter. Neither of the lesser-included offenses included the option of finding the defendant “not guilty.” Defense counsel objected to the verdict form twice, each time the trial court disagreed.

core/paragraph

The Court of Appeals agreed with defense counsel and found that the jury verdict form, which did give the jury the option of finding the defendant generally not guilty, or not guilty of the lesser-included offenses, violated the defendant’s constitutional right to a trial by jury. Our post discussing the Court of Appeals’ decision can be found <a href="http://www.ocjblog.com/'p=1133" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. The Supreme Court disagreed and determined that because the trial-court judge gave clear, oral jury instructions, the jury clearly understood that it could have found the defendant not guilty of first-degree murder and also found him not guilty of any lesser offenses by simply checking the “not guilty” box under Count One of the jury-verdict form. Under these circumstances, the Court concluded that the trial court’s error in using the improper verdict form was harmless. Justice Kelley dissented and stated that she would have granted leave to appeal and ordered full briefing and oral argument because she considered this to be a jurisprudentially significant issue of first impression in Michigan. A copy of the Court’s order can be found <a href="http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20091202_S139327_78_139327_2009-12-02_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.

In People v. Stockman, No. 138233, the Court considered the application for leave to appeal, and in lieu of granting leave remanded the case to the Wayne County Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence that the child victim’s allegations of sexual abuse were impossible. In Stockman, the defendant was charged and subsequently convicted of two counts of criminal sexual conduct in violation of MCL 750.520b(1)(a), and one count of accosting a child for immoral purposes in violation of MCL 750.145a.

Following the trial, the defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment. In support of his motion, the defendant submitted affidavits from two physicians who concluded that based on their examination of the victim, it was nearly impossible that the victim had been assaulted in the manner she described during her testimony. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion. Defendant appealed this decision on the grounds that there was a “significant possibility” that he was innocent of the alleged crimes under MCR 6.508(D)(3) and that his trial counsel provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to investigate and present medical testimony that the child victim’s allegations were medically impossible or implausible.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling holding that while the victim’s testimony was ambiguous regarding the specific circumstances of the sexual penetration, the affidavits of the two physicians were at odds with the evidence presented at trial. Under these circumstances, the Court held there was no basis for concluding that there was a “significant possibility” that defendant was innocent of the alleged crimes under MCR 6.508(D)(3) and that his trial counsel provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel.

In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Court remanded the case to the Wayne County Circuit Court and ordered that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing within 35 days. The Court retained jurisdiction. The purpose of the hearing is to determine if defendant’s trial attorney provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel. Once the hearing is completed, the trial court must provide the Court with a copy of its findings of fact and with a transcript of the hearing within 28 days. After the transcript has been filed with the Court, the parties will have 21 days to file supplemental briefs with the Court. The Court did note that with respect to defendant’s claims regarding the forensic testing of the “turkey baster,” his leave to appeal was denied because he failed to meet to burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). Justice Corrigan concurred in the decision. A copy of the Court’s order is <a href="http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20091202_S138233_52_138233_2009-12-02_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.

MSC Order List: December 2, 2009

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000.