​ The court held that the testimony of the defendant’s soon-to-be ex-husband (D) and her daughter (V) identifying the defendant on the bank surveillance photos was admissible under MRE 701. It rejected her claim that the testimony should have been excluded under MRE 403, and her ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Further, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her request for substitute counsel, and, pursuant to Corbin, the tri

The court rejected the defendant’s attempt to suppress the results of his blood-alcohol test in his trial for OWVI, third offense, and OWSL because even though his blood was drawn at the jail in a room adjacent to the booking area and not in a “medical facility,” the procedure complied with the warrant’s requirements and the “implied consent” statute did not come into play. The defendant’s sample was taken pursuant to a search warrant — “[t]he warrant procedure exists indepen

On Monday, October 19, 2015, Berrien County Trial Court Judge Angela Pasula resentenced 20-year-old Zach Anderson to 2 years probation under the Holmes Youthful Training Act (HYTA). HYTA is a special probation for individuals ages 17-23 that allows them to keep a criminal conviction off of their record if they successfully complete probation. Earlier in 2015, Mr. Anderson pled guilty to 4th-degree criminal sexual conduct; in April 2015, he was sentenced to 5 years probatio

People v Blesch Issues: The § 8 defense of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) (MCL 333.26421 et seq.); People v. Hartwick; The physician-patient relationship; § 8(a)(1); The quantity of marijuana; § 8(a)(2); “Usable marihuana” defined; MCL 333.26424; “Marihuana” defined; MCL 333.7106(4); MCL 333.26423(e); The “medical use” requirement; § 8(a)(3); MCL 333.26423(f); Whether the defendant’s own testimony as to any purported statements of his patients that they engaged onl

United States v. Johnson The court reversed defendant-Johnson’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a rifle because it was based on “hearsay” evidence; however, it held that there was sufficient evidence to convict him of being a felon in possession of a handgun. There was “considerable other evidence . . . that Johnson possessed the handgun.” The fact that “Johnson knew the gun was in the car and that it was located conspicuously within arm’s length of him told the