People v. Morrow (1995)

Therefore, “the trial court’s authority over the discharge of the prosecutor’s duties is limited to those activities or decisions by the prosecutor that are unconstitutional, illegal, or ultra vires.” Morrow, 214 Mich App at 161, citing Williams, 186 Mich App at 608-613.

Genesee, supra; Morrow, supra at 165; Jackson, supra; Williams, supra. Here, despite the victim’s failure to appear on the trial date, the prosecutor arguably had a viable basis to proceed by showing that the victim was an unavailable witness.

Const 1963, art 3, § 2; People v Morrow, 214 Mich App 158, 161, 165 ; 542 NW2d 324 (1995).

See, e.g., State v. Kinchen, 707 A.2d 1255, 1261 (Conn. 1998) (respect for separation of powers compelled conclusion that trial court lacks authority to dismiss complaint absent “constitutional infirmity or other fundamental defect in the state’s exercise of its prosecutorial authority”); People v. Morrow, 542 N.W.2d 324, 326 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) (“trial court’s authority over the discharge of the prosecutor’s duties is limited to those activities or decisions by the prosec…

See People v Morrow, 214 Mich App 158, 165, n 5 ; 542 NW2d 324 (1995) (prosecutor properly informed recanting witness that failure to testify truthfully would subject her to criminal prosecution for perjury); People v Robbins, 131 Mich App 429, 439 ; 346 NW2d 333 (1984) (warnings to potential defense witness concerning possible perjury charges have been held to be proper); see also Hence v Smith, 49 F Supp 2d 547, 552 (ED Mich, 1999), quoting United States v Whittington, 783…

See People v Morrow, 214 Mich App 158, 161 ; 542 NW2d 324 (1995).

See People v Morrow, 214 Mich App 158, 165 ; 542 NW2d 324 (1995).

See People v Morrow, 214 Mich App 158, 163-164 ; 542 NW2d 324 (1995).

See People v Morrow, 214 Mich App 158, 163-164 ; 542 NW2d 324 (1995).