|
State of Michigan v Roger Lee Apps |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2007 |
---------------------------------------- |
|
State of Michigan v Ronald Francis Wroblewski, Jr. |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2007 |
---------------------------------------- |
|
State of Michigan v Sandeep Narendran Sabapathy |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2007 |
---------------------------------------- |
|
State of Michigan v Scott Allen Fisher |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2007 |
---------------------------------------- |
|
State of Michigan v Terry Lee George, Jr. |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2007 |
Defendant argued that the trial court's reference to impaired driving as a "less serious offense" to operating while intoxicated misled the jury into believing that defendant would face a lesser penalty if they convicted him of impaired driving rather than OWI, when the penalties for the two offenses are the same. I tend to agree with this argument. The Court of Appeals disagreed, even though this instruction remains fundamentally flawed in the current standardized instructions. I have addressed this with members of the jury instruction committee, and I have won numerous motions to make a simple change to this instruction. Instead of characterizing the offense as “less serious,” courts will frequently change the term to “lesser included,” a simple yet effective fix. |
|
State of Michigan v Thomas Vincent Maclean |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2007 |
---------------------------------------- |
|
State of Michigan v Wood, 276 Mich App 669; 741 NW2d 574 (2007) |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2007 |
---------------------------------------- |
|
City of Howell v Amell, Docket No. 261228, Unpublished December 19, 2006 (2006) |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2006 |
IMPORTANT CASE: What does it mean if a motorist blows under the legal limit? Is the prosecutor required to provide expert testimony as to what an arbitrary number means? Yes, according to several out-of-state decisions, but NO according to the Michigan Court of Appeals. According to the Court of Appeals, a jury can figure it out on their own (even though most people are not actually intoxicated at .08, and the jury instructions tell jurors to give a chemical test whatever weight they believe it deserves.) This is a terrible decision and not particularly well developed. |
|
Dawson v Secretary of State,274 Mich App 723; 739 NW2d 339 (2006) |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2006 |
Upholding Michigan's Driver Responsibility Fees |
|
People of City of East Lansing v Arthur Andrew Eubank, Iii (January 26, 2006) |
Michigan Court of Appeals |
2006 |
|