Lawrence Lindemer

The case involved a defendant tried and convicted of assault with intent to commit murder after breaking into an estranged girlfriend's home and shooting her in 1972. The defendant raised an intoxication defense claiming he lacked specific intent due to alcohol and drugs along with amnesia, after initially exploring but abandoning an insanity defense; the prosecution's psychiatrist was permitted to testify on rebuttal about statements the defendant made during a court-ordered examination that contradicted his trial testimony on those points. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the psychiatrist's testimony was properly admitted as impeachment by prior inconsistent statements to test the truthfulness of the defendant's voluntary testimony, drawing on precedents like Harris v. New York even though the insanity defense was not pursued at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned an attempt by stepchildren to invalidate a 1969 deed that transferred a Michigan farm from Julia Merkiel to her second husband as tenants by the entireties, which would have passed the property outside her will; plaintiffs alleged the deed resulted from undue influence. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the defendant (the husband's estate), holding that the deed was valid. The court reasoned that while a presumption of undue influence arises when a confidential or fiduciary relationship exists, the beneficiary profits, and the fiduciary had opportunity to influence, this presumption affects only the burden of going forward with evidence and does not shift the ultimate burden of proof, which remains on the plaintiffs throughout; the trial judge properly found the presumption rebutted and no undue influence proven. The opinion also clarified related evidentiary standards for such claims.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Flint Dodge Company, the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident, could obtain indemnification from Gloria Martorelli, the driver who was test-driving the car at the time, after both were held liable to injured third parties under Michigan's owner liability statute. The trial court directed verdicts of liability against both defendants but allowed the jury to decide the indemnification cross-claim, resulting in a verdict for Martorelli; the judge then denied Flint Dodge's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the matter, noting that the driver's liability rested on negligence while the owner's was statutory and without personal fault, and discussed equitable indemnity principles along with policy factors such as mandatory insurance coverage in reaching its decision on appeal.

torts & liability

This case concerned a dispute between a union representing a probation officer and Recorder's Court judges over whether the officer's discharge must be reviewed through binding arbitration under the Public Employees Relations Act or follow the specific statutory removal process in MCLA 771.10. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed that the judges properly refused arbitration and that the statutory procedure controlled. The court reasoned that a specific statute prevails over a general one like PERA in the event of conflict, and that probation officers perform duties central to judicial functions, including presentence investigations and supervision, such that arbitration could undermine the courts' ability to maintain confidence in their officers. The statutory hearing process was deemed sufficient to protect the employee without requiring submission to a private arbitrator.

labor & employmentcriminal lawprocedure

The cases involve defendants Anderson and Overby who were convicted of armed robbery and related charges in Michigan courts and sought to represent themselves at trial after expressing dissatisfaction with their appointed counsel. The Michigan Supreme Court addressed the circumstances under which a defendant may waive counsel and proceed pro se, holding that such a request must be unequivocal and made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily after being informed of the risks. The Court affirmed Anderson's conviction because his request was conditional on receiving additional time to prepare and thus not unequivocal, but reversed Overby's conviction and remanded for a new trial because his request satisfied the requirements. The decision draws on state constitutional and statutory provisions as well as the U.S. Supreme Court's Faretta v. California ruling recognizing the implicit Sixth Amendment right to self-representation.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved defendant Cooper, who was acquitted in federal court on bank robbery charges under 18 USC 2113(a) after attempting to rob a bank using bombs, but was subsequently tried and convicted in Michigan state court on charges of attempted murder, bank robbery, and assault with intent to rob being armed. The Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether the state prosecution violated double jeopardy protections under the US and Michigan Constitutions, despite the doctrine of dual sovereignty recognized in Bartkus v. Illinois. The court held that the state charges were barred because the federal and state statutes protected substantially the same interests, with no distinct state interest shown to justify a successive prosecution. It further ruled that the defendant had not waived the double jeopardy claim by failing to raise it at trial, applying updated standards from Benton v. Maryland and People v. Grimmett. The attempted murder conviction had already been dismissed by the Court of Appeals.

criminal lawfederal powercivil rights