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

The case involved a black female welder who sued her employer for race and sex discrimination under the Michigan Civil Rights Act after a white male colleague received favorable treatment regarding a welding qualification test and resulting seniority that affected a shift preference bid. The trial court dismissed the claim on the ground that it was preempted by section 301 of the federal Labor Management Relations Act, but the Michigan Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the state discrimination claim was not preempted because it was independent of the collective-bargaining agreement and could be resolved without interpreting the agreement's terms. The decision rested on federal precedents such as Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., which distinguish between claims requiring contract interpretation and those turning on factual questions of discriminatory motive.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

The case involved Michigan Bell Telephone Company challenging the inclusion of intangible property in the valuation of its tangible assets for taxation under the 1905 Public Act 282 by the State Board of Assessors for tax years 1984-1986. The Michigan Tax Tribunal and Court of Appeals upheld the assessments, which valued the company's property as a unified "going concern" that incorporates intangible elements like franchises contributing to the value of physical assets such as poles and wires. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Act 282 permits such valuation of intangible personal property as part of assessing the true cash value of the telephone company's operating property, consistent with constitutional requirements for ad valorem taxation of public service businesses.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryproperty

The consolidated cases addressed the judicial inquiry required before permitting a criminal defendant to waive the right to counsel and proceed pro se. In People v. Jones, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to advise the defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, necessitating a new trial. In People v. Dennany, a new trial was also required because the trial court denied the defendant's request to proceed pro se on the erroneous basis that the waiver was not knowing and voluntary. The core reasoning centered on ensuring waivers are knowing, voluntary, and unequivocal under Michigan Court Rule 6.005(D) and relevant precedents before allowing self-representation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Thomas Jaffray, who was convicted after a bench trial of kidnapping by secret confinement for restraining victim Bruce Williams with handcuffs and rope in a house while attempting to recover a stolen dog. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding insufficient evidence because third parties had become aware of the victim's detention. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, holding that the evidence supported the conviction because the defendants had intended the confinement to be secret and kept the victim's location secret during the relevant period, even though some awareness occurred. The court reasoned that the kidnapping statute focuses on the defendant's intent and actions to maintain secrecy rather than requiring absolute lack of knowledge by anyone.

criminal law

The case concerned the interpretation of 'work loss' benefits under Michigan's no-fault insurance act for a plaintiff who, after recovering from auto accident injuries, found her original job filled and later took then quit a lower-paying position. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals decision that had awarded the plaintiff ongoing wage-differential benefits for the full three-year statutory period after the accident. The core reasoning focused on the statutory language requiring compensation for income the injured person would have earned but for the accident, while applying the common-law doctrine of avoidable consequences to limit benefits when the plaintiff unreasonably failed to pursue or retain suitable substitute employment, and distinguishing the state act from the model UMVARA.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In People v. Travis, the Michigan Supreme Court considered a criminal case in which the defendant, charged with breaking and entering and assault, provided timely pretrial notice of an alibi defense naming witnesses, but the prosecution failed to respond with notice of rebuttal witnesses until after trial had begun and some alibi testimony had been presented, citing an internal filing error. The trial court permitted the late rebuttal testimony over objection, leading to the defendant's conviction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on grounds that no unfairness resulted. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the notice-of-alibi statute requires reciprocal advance notice to enable strategic preparation by both sides and that the prosecution's untimely disclosure violated this requirement, prejudicing the defense.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved whether Michigan could tax distributions from a Section 457 deferred compensation plan paid after 1983 to a former state employee who had relocated to Florida, including both the original deferred earnings from Michigan employment and interest accrued on the account. The plaintiff contended that the Michigan Income Tax Act did not authorize taxation of such payments to nonresidents because they were not compensation for services performed in the state during the year of receipt, and also raised an equal protection challenge to the state's selective withholding from former state employees. The Court of Appeals had ruled that both the deferred compensation and interest were taxable and rejected the equal protection claim. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the deferred compensation portion remained taxable as income earned for personal services rendered in Michigan under the Act's allocation rules for nonresidents, while distinguishing the treatment of post-residency interest.

taxes

The case arose when Tara Bivens sued the City of Grand Rapids and the Kent Country Club after injuring herself on a defective public sidewalk abutting the club's property; the club was dismissed from the suit, and the city then sought indemnification from the club under a local ordinance requiring abutting owners to maintain sidewalks and fully indemnify the city for any damages it paid. The trial court and Court of Appeals rejected the city's claim, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the city lacked authority to impose an indemnification obligation by ordinance because the city's 1918 charter, which governs such duties, only authorizes the city to repair sidewalks itself at the owner's expense and obtain a lien on the property, without providing for private indemnification or shifting liability. Municipal corporations derive their powers solely from the state and charter, and an ordinance exceeding those limits is invalid.

propertytorts & liability

The case concerned whether a seller's failure to disclose an existing mortgage on real property sold via land contract could amount to obtaining money by false pretenses under MCL 750.218. Defendant Alan Jory was convicted after selling property to Pearl Brumit without mentioning the mortgage, which later led to foreclosure when he defaulted. The court held that nondisclosure can constitute a false pretense in some circumstances but reversed the conviction because the evidence failed to establish the required elements of the offense, including intent to defraud. The record showed insufficient proof that the defendant knowingly misled the buyer or that she relied on any misrepresentation, as testimony about pre-contract discussions was inconclusive. The decision emphasized that reasonable inferences from the facts could not support the conviction without direct evidentiary support.

criminal lawproperty

In People v. Kurylczyk, the defendant was convicted of bank robbery and felony firearm possession after five eyewitnesses identified him through a photographic array and a later corporeal lineup. He appealed, arguing that the procedures violated his rights to counsel and due process because the photo array was suggestive, he lacked counsel during it, and media coverage of surveillance and post-arraignment photos tainted both identifications. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that neither lineup was impermissibly suggestive, that the defendant had no right to counsel at the pre-arraignment photo identification, and that the witnesses' identifications were independently reliable based on their observations during the robbery and consistent descriptions. The Court found the lineups fairly constructed and any media exposure did not undermine the process.

criminal law

In People v. Jones, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of attempted felonious assault (and a related misdemeanor) based on evidence that he directed scissors toward a police officer during an arrest following a break-in, even though the trial court found facts that could have supported the completed offense. The Court of Appeals vacated the attempted-assault conviction on the ground that Michigan law recognizes no such crime. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding that attempted felonious assault is a cognizable offense because the definition of assault encompasses both an attempt to commit a battery and an unlawful act placing another in reasonable apprehension of immediate battery; this dual formulation allows for a logical attempt charge, especially when a dangerous weapon is involved.

criminal law

In People v. Fisher, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed a criminal defendant's challenge to the use of his estranged wife's extrajudicial statements, included in a presentence report, during resentencing after his second-degree murder conviction. The court held that the marital communications privilege under MCL 600.2162 could not be invoked because the spouse was not called or examined as a witness, making the privilege inapplicable to the sentencing proceeding. It further ruled that the sentencing court properly applied the second edition of the sentencing guidelines despite earlier proceedings under the first edition. The decision focused on the statutory text limiting the privilege to witness examinations and found no error in the guidelines application during the resentencing process.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved property owners challenging special assessments imposed by the City of Grandville for street widening, curbs, storm sewers, water and sewer laterals, and related improvements to Canal Avenue, arguing that the work conferred no special benefit and may have reduced property values due to increased traffic. The Tax Tribunal upheld the assessments after finding sufficient evidence of benefits to the abutting parcels. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the city had presented only minimal evidence of special benefits under the standard from Dixon Rd Group v Novi. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Tax Tribunal's decision, concluding that the tribunal's findings were supported by substantial evidence on the whole record and that the assessments properly reflected the enhanced value from the local improvements.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case concerns whether certain severed oil and gas mineral interests in an 80-acre parcel in Clare County were deemed abandoned under Michigan's dormant minerals act in favor of the surface owners (the Benchleys) due to a lack of qualifying activity over a 20-year period. The trial court held that the interests were not abandoned because the expiration of recorded leases in 1961 constituted a transfer that restarted the dormancy clock, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, ruling that the disputed interests held by the Whitmill heirs and NMHF were not abandoned. The core reasoning was that the dormant minerals act is not merely a recording statute that automatically triggers forfeiture after 20 years without a new recorded instrument; instead, it recognizes multiple non-recording events (such as production of oil or gas) that can preserve the severed interests, and the statute must be construed to facilitate mineral development rather than to effect automatic title transfers.

property