Robert P. Griffin

The consolidated cases involved two bench trials in Detroit Recorder's Court before Judge Curtis, where the prosecutor raised mid-trial issues about the judge's undisclosed personal or professional relationships with individuals connected to the defense, leading to her recusal, a successor judge's declaration of mistrial, and subsequent double jeopardy challenges to retrial. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause permits retrial of defendant Hicks but bars retrial of defendant Bellew. The core reasoning focused on the manifest-necessity exception to double jeopardy protections: in Hicks, the judge's recusal due to her friendship with the defendant's brother was treated as analogous to a breakdown in the judicial process, such as disability, justifying a mistrial; in Bellew, the circumstances surrounding the prosecutor's motion alleging an association with the judge's spouse did not meet that standard. The decision reversed the Court of Appeals in Hicks and affirmed it in Bellew.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the constitutionality of a provision in 1993 PA 198 that authorized the sale of Michigan's State Accident Fund—a state-run workers' compensation insurer—and declared that the sale proceeds would belong to the state. The Michigan Supreme Court, answering a certified question from the governor, held that the provision is constitutional. The court reasoned that the Accident Fund had always operated as a state agency under statutory directives to be self-supporting without generating profits for policyholders, and that policyholders held no vested property rights in any surplus or assets that would prevent the legislature from directing the proceeds to the state.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryproperty

The case involved defendant Lanford Underwood, an inmate convicted of assault with intent to murder and armed robbery after a prison employee was beaten and robbed in a factory area where only three inmates, including Underwood, were present. Before trial, the prosecution disclosed a police report indicating a confidential informant had relayed statements from another inmate (Manning) claiming that Manning and a third inmate committed the crimes, with Underwood serving only as a lookout. Underwood moved for disclosure of the informant's identity, arguing the information was exculpatory, but the trial court denied the request. The Michigan Supreme Court held that due process required remanding the case for an in camera hearing to determine whether the informant's evidence was relevant and helpful to the defense or essential to a fair determination of guilt, applying the balancing test from Roviaro v. United States.

criminal lawprocedure

This consolidated Michigan Supreme Court case addressed issues of severance in joint criminal trials of codefendants. In People v. Hana, the defendant sought separate trials on grounds of antagonistic defenses in a narcotics possession and delivery prosecution; the trial court denied the motion, and the Supreme Court held that severance was not required because the defendant failed to show prejudice to substantial rights under MCL 768.5 and MCR 6.121. In the companion cases of People v. Rode and People v. Gallina, which involved dual-jury procedures in a shooting prosecution, the Court ruled that the use of separate juries constitutes a partial severance that must meet the same prejudice standard, and it found no demonstrated prejudice to the defendants' rights. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court's rulings in all three matters, emphasizing that severance decisions lie within the trial court's discretion and are mandatory only when necessary to avoid prejudice to substantial rights.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct based on allegations of three separate incidents of anal penetration with a minor in January 1989. The trial court provided general jury instructions on the elements of the offense and the need for a unanimous verdict but declined to give a special instruction requiring agreement on a specific act of penetration; the jury convicted the defendant of the lesser offense of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. The Court of Appeals vacated the conviction for lack of a specific unanimity instruction, but the Michigan Supreme Court reversed that decision, reasoning that the evidence regarding each alleged act was materially identical and there was no indication the jury was confused or disagreed about the basis for the defendant's guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

In this worker's compensation case, plaintiff was awarded total and permanent disability benefits in 1967, including nursing care compensation at a rate of $5 per day for services by her husband, with the award to continue until further order of the department. Fourteen years later, she successfully petitioned for an increase in the rate and hours of such compensation through arbitration. The Court of Appeals reversed on grounds that res judicata barred modification absent a change in the plaintiff's physical condition. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed that decision, concluding that res judicata did not preclude modification because the 1967 order was not a final judgment for purposes of the doctrine given its explicit provision for future orders.

labor & employmentprocedure