right to present defense in Michigan

2026Accordingly, the right to present a defense extends only to relevant and admissible evidence. [Solloway, 316 Mich App at 198 (quotation marks and citations omitted).] To that point, the rape-shield statute “constitutes a legislative policy determination that sexual conduct or reputation regarding sexual conduct as evidence of character and for impeachment, while perhaps logically relevant, is not legally relevant.” Sharpe, 502 Mich at 326 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026“Accordingly, the right to present a defense extends only to relevant and admissible evidence.” People v Solloway, 316 Mich App 174, 198 ; 891 NW2d 255 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026And because the exclusion of the evidence was based on a valid, nonarbitrary rule of evidence, defendant’s claim that he was denied the right to present a defense necessarily fails.8 See Unger, 278 Mich App at 250-251 .

2024This Court has similarly recognized that a criminal defendant has a state and federal constitutional right to present a defense. [People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 249-250 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted; alteration incorporated).] However, the right to present a defense is not absolute, and that right is not infringed by, for example, MRE 402’s prohibition of admitting irrelevant evidence.

2025“The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies.” Washington v Texas, 388 US 14, 19 ; 87 S Ct 1920 ; 18 L Ed 2d 1019 (1967).

2025“The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies.” Washington v Texas, 388 US 14, 19 ; 87 S Ct 1920 ; 18 L Ed 2d 1019 (1967).

2025“The right to offer the testimony of witnesses . . . is in plain terms the right to present a defense[.]” People v Kowalski, 492 Mich 106, 139 ; 821 NW2d 14 (2012).

2025“The right to offer the testimony of witnesses . . . is in plain terms the right to present a defense[.]” People v Kowalski, 492 Mich 106, 139 ; 821 NW2d 14 (2012).

2024However, the right to present a defense is “not unlimited and is subject to reasonable restrictions.” King, 297 Mich App at 473-474 .

2023However, the right to present a defense “is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable restrictions.” People v King, 297 Mich App 465, 473 ; 824 NW2d 258 (2012).

2016Constitutional questions are generally reviewed de novo, including claims that a defendant was denied the right to present a defense, People v Kurr, 253 Mich App 317, 327 ; 654 NW2d 651 (2002), or confront the witnesses against him, Benton, 294 Mich App at 195 .

2016Constitutional questions are generally reviewed de novo, including claims that a defendant was denied the right to present a defense, People v Kurr, 253 Mich App 317, 327 ; 654 NW2d 651 (2002), or confront the witnesses against him, Benton, 294 Mich App at 195 .

2019See also People v Whitfield, 425 Mich 116 , 124 n 1; 388 NW2d 206 (1986) (applying harmless-error review to defendant’s claim that he was denied the right to present a defense).

2019See also People v Whitfield, 425 Mich 116 , 124 n 1; 388 NW2d 206 (1986) (applying harmless-error review to defendant’s claim that he was denied the right to present a defense).

2024“Although the right to present a defense is a fundamental element of due process, it is not an absolute right.” People v Hayes, 421 Mich 271, 279 ; 364 NW2d 635 (1984).

2024“Although the right to present a defense is a fundamental element of due process, it is not an absolute right.” People v Hayes, 421 Mich 271, 279 ; 364 NW2d 635 (1984).

2026“A criminal defendant has a right to present a defense under our state and federal constitutions.” People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436, 460 ; 719 NW2d 579 (2006).

2026“A criminal defendant has a right to present a defense under our state and federal constitutions.” People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436, 460 ; 719 NW2d 579 (2006).

2008None of them involved restrictions imposed on a defendant's ability to present an affirmative defense. [ Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333, 343 , 113 S.Ct. 2112 , 124 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993).] The right to present a defense has only been invoked to reverse a conviction when the defendant was completely precluded from offering relevant and material evidence or testimony on the basis of a rule or decision that was "`arbitrary' or `disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.'" United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 , 118 S.Ct. 1261 , 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998), quoting Rock v. Arkansa

2008None of them involved restrictions imposed on a defendant's ability to present an affirmative defense. [ Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333, 343 , 113 S.Ct. 2112 , 124 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993).] The right to present a defense has only been invoked to reverse a conviction when the defendant was completely precluded from offering relevant and material evidence or testimony on the basis of a rule or decision that was "`arbitrary' or `disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.'" United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 , 118 S.Ct. 1261 , 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998), quoting Rock v. Arkansa

2017To preserve the issue that defendant was denied the right to present a defense, “a party must object below and specify the same ground for objection that it argues on appeal.” People v Bosca, 310 Mich App 1, 46 ; 871 NW2d 307 , app held in abeyance 872 NW2d 492 (2015), citing People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 113 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001).

2017To preserve the issue that defendant was denied the right to present a defense, “a party must object below and specify the same ground for objection that it argues on appeal.” People v Bosca, 310 Mich App 1, 46 ; 871 NW2d 307 , app held in abeyance 872 NW2d 492 (2015), citing People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 113 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001).

2019Crane v Kentucky, 476 US 683, 691 ; 106 S Ct 2142 ; 90 L Ed 2d 636 (1986) (recognizing that a violation of the right to present a defense is subject to harmless-error analysis, and remanding for consideration of whether the error in that case was harmless).

2019Crane v Kentucky, 476 US 683, 691 ; 106 S Ct 2142 ; 90 L Ed 2d 636 (1986) (recognizing that a violation of the right to present a defense is subject to harmless-error analysis, and remanding for consideration of whether the error in that case was harmless).

2017Under these circumstances, the trial court’s decision to bar the hearsay testimony under MRE 403 fell within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes, Yost, 278 Mich App at 353 , and the exclusion of this evidence did not deny defendant the right to present a defense, Unger, 278 Mich App at 250-251 .

2017Under these circumstances, the trial court’s decision to bar the hearsay testimony under MRE 403 fell within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes, Yost, 278 Mich App at 353 , and the exclusion of this evidence did not deny defendant the right to present a defense, Unger, 278 Mich App at 250-251 .

2015With respect to defendant’s constitutional argument that the lack of an instruction denied him the right to present a defense, generally, “[t]his Court reviews de novo whether defendant suffered a deprivation of his constitutional right to present a defense.” People v Steele, 283 Mich App 472, 480 ; 769 NW2d 256 (2009).

2015With respect to defendant’s constitutional argument that the lack of an instruction denied him the right to present a defense, generally, “[t]his Court reviews de novo whether defendant suffered a deprivation of his constitutional right to present a defense.” People v Steele, 283 Mich App 472, 480 ; 769 NW2d 256 (2009).

2025In presenting a request for appointment of an expert, an indigent defendant must demonstrate “that there exists a reasonable probability both that an expert would be of assistance to the defense and that denial of expert assistance would result in a fundamentally unfair trial.” People v Kennedy, 502 Mich 206, 227 ; 917 NW2d 355 (2018), quoting Moore v Kemp, 809 F 2d 702, 712 (CA 11, 1987).1 1 Kennedy involved the appointment of an expert witness for an indigent adult defendant.

2025In presenting a request for appointment of an expert, an indigent defendant must demonstrate “that there exists a reasonable probability both that an expert would be of assistance to the defense and that denial of expert assistance would result in a fundamentally unfair trial.” People v Kennedy, 502 Mich 206, 227 ; 917 NW2d 355 (2018), quoting Moore v Kemp, 809 F 2d 702, 712 (CA 11, 1987).1 1 Kennedy involved the appointment of an expert witness for an indigent adult defendant.

2015And though a criminal defendant has the right to present a defense, “that right is not cloaked with protection from vigorous cross-examination.” People v Gray, 466 Mich 44, 48 ; 642 NW2d 660 (2002).

2015And though a criminal defendant has the right to present a defense, “that right is not cloaked with protection from vigorous cross-examination.” People v Gray, 466 Mich 44, 48 ; 642 NW2d 660 (2002).

2026Accordingly, the right to present a defense extends only to relevant and admissible evidence. [Solloway, 316 Mich App at 198 (quotation marks and citations omitted).] To that point, the rape-shield statute “constitutes a legislative policy determination that sexual conduct or reputation regarding sexual conduct as evidence of character and for impeachment, while perhaps logically relevant, is not legally relevant.” Sharpe, 502 Mich at 326 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024The rules of evidence “do not abridge an accused’s right to present a defense so long as they are not arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.” Unger, 278 Mich App at 250 (quotation marks and citation omitted). -10- “The rape-shield statute constitutes a legislative policy determination that sexual conduct or reputation regarding sexual conduct as evidence of character and for impeachment, while perhaps logically relevant, is not legally relevant.” People v Sharpe, 502 Mich 313, 326 ; 918 NW2d 504 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021“Accordingly, the right to present a defense extends only to relevant and admissible evidence.” People v Solloway, 316 Mich App 174, 198 ; 891 NW2d 255 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[E]vidence is relevant if two components are present, materiality and probative value.” People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184, 197 ; 783 NW2d 67 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021“Accordingly, the right to present a defense extends only to relevant and admissible evidence.” People v Solloway, 316 Mich App 174, 198 ; 891 NW2d 255 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[E]vidence is relevant if two components are present, materiality and probative value.” People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184, 197 ; 783 NW2d 67 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted).