line inquiry in Michigan

2018This Court has recognized that “ ‘[a] complete breakdown of the attorney-client relationship or disagreement over whether a particular line of defense should be pursued may justify appointing new counsel.’ ” Buie (On Remand), 298 Mich App at 67 , quoting People v O’Brien, 89 Mich App 704, 708 ; 282 NW2d 190 (1979).

2018This Court has recognized that “ ‘[a] complete breakdown of the attorney-client relationship or disagreement over whether a particular line of defense should be pursued may justify appointing new counsel.’ ” Buie (On Remand), 298 Mich App at 67 , quoting People v O’Brien, 89 Mich App 704, 708 ; 282 NW2d 190 (1979).

2017“A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” People v Burns, 494 Mich 104, 110 ; 832 NW2d 738 (2013).

2017“A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” People v Burns, 494 Mich 104, 110 ; 832 NW2d 738 (2013).

2024To establish a Brady violation, however, a defendant must show: (1) that the state possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; (2) that the defendant did not possess the evidence nor could the defendant have obtained it with any reasonable diligence; (3) that the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence; and (4) that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. [People v Cox, 268 Mich App 440, 448 ; 709 NW2d 152 (2005).] Defendant does not argue the elements of a Brady violation, and it is

2024To establish a Brady violation, however, a defendant must show: (1) that the state possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; (2) that the defendant did not possess the evidence nor could the defendant have obtained it with any reasonable diligence; (3) that the prosecution suppressed the favorable evidence; and (4) that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. [People v Cox, 268 Mich App 440, 448 ; 709 NW2d 152 (2005).] Defendant does not argue the elements of a Brady violation, and it is

2023In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” [Hinton v Alabama, 571 US 263, 274 ; 134 S Ct 1081 ; 188 L Ed 2d 1 (2014), quoting Strickland, 466 US at 690-691 .] The majority’s analysis suggests that it was Rountree’s burden to figure out how to prove permission, and to then supply Goldstein with a path to the evidence.

2023In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” [Hinton v Alabama, 571 US 263, 274 ; 134 S Ct 1081 ; 188 L Ed 2d 1 (2014), quoting Strickland, 466 US at 690-691 .] The majority’s analysis suggests that it was Rountree’s burden to figure out how to prove permission, and to then supply Goldstein with a path to the evidence.

2023In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” [Hinton v Alabama, 571 US 263, 274 ; 134 S Ct 1081 ; 188 L Ed 2d 1 (2014), quoting Strickland, 466 US at 690-691 .] The majority’s analysis suggests that it was Rountree’s burden to figure out how to prove permission, and to then supply Goldstein with a path to the evidence.

2020Most such objections are undoubtedly curable by simply refusing to allow the proffered evidence to be admitted, or in the case of a particular line of inquiry taken by counsel with a witness, by an admonition to desist from a particular line of inquiry. [Id. at 674-675.] The Supreme Court stated that “[o]nly where the governmental conduct in question is intended to ‘goad’ the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion.” Id. at 676 .

2020“When a defendant asserts that his assigned lawyer is not adequate or diligent or asserts, as here, that his lawyer is disinterested, the judge should hear his claim and, if there is a factual dispute, take testimony and state his findings and conclusion.” People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 441-442 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).

2020“When a defendant asserts that his assigned lawyer is not adequate or diligent or asserts, as here, that his lawyer is disinterested, the judge should hear his claim and, if there is a factual dispute, take testimony and state his findings and conclusion.” People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 441-442 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).

2020In People v Tyson, 423 Mich 357 ; 377 NW2d 738 (1985), the prosecutor was questioning the officer in charge about the defendant’s demeanor “to discredit [the] defendant’s insanity defense by eliciting testimony that he was ‘putting on sort of an act.’ ” Id. at 360-361 .

2020In People v Tyson, 423 Mich 357 ; 377 NW2d 738 (1985), the prosecutor was questioning the officer in charge about the defendant’s demeanor “to discredit [the] defendant’s insanity defense by eliciting testimony that he was ‘putting on sort of an act.’ ” Id. at 360-361 .

2012In Meyers, 124 Mich App at 165 , the defendant requested substitute trial counsel because the defendant was having difficulty communicating with his counsel. “[The defendant] informed the [trial] court that he objected to his attorney because he was not the attorney of the defendant’s choice, that he and his attorney disagreed about the case,» and that he did not like the language his defense attorney used toward him.” Id. at 166 .

2012In Meyers, 124 Mich App at 165 , the defendant requested substitute trial counsel because the defendant was having difficulty communicating with his counsel. “[The defendant] informed the [trial] court that he objected to his attorney because he was not the attorney of the defendant’s choice, that he and his attorney disagreed about the case,» and that he did not like the language his defense attorney used toward him.” Id. at 166 .

1992Sucoe v Oakwood Hosp Corp, 185 Mich App 484 ; 462 NW2d 780 (1990).

1992Sucoe v Oakwood Hosp Corp, 185 Mich App 484 ; 462 NW2d 780 (1990).

1984People v Flanagan, 129 Mich App 786, 793-794 ; 342 NW2d 609 (1983).

1984People v Flanagan, 129 Mich App 786, 793-794 ; 342 NW2d 609 (1983).

1979People v Hooper, 82 Mich App 713 ; 267 NW2d 162 (1978) (disagreement over alibi defense), People v Wilson, 43 Mich App 459 ; 204 NW2d 269 (1972), lv den 393 Mich 813 (1975) (communication between attorney and client had ceased).

1979People v Hooper, 82 Mich App 713 ; 267 NW2d 162 (1978) (disagreement over alibi defense), People v Wilson, 43 Mich App 459 ; 204 NW2d 269 (1972), lv den 393 Mich 813 (1975) (communication between attorney and client had ceased).

1979People v Hooper, 82 Mich App 713 ; 267 NW2d 162 (1978) (disagreement over alibi defense), People v Wilson, 43 Mich App 459 ; 204 NW2d 269 (1972), lv den 393 Mich 813 (1975) (communication between attorney and client had ceased).

1979People v Hooper, 82 Mich App 713 ; 267 NW2d 162 (1978) (disagreement over alibi defense), People v Wilson, 43 Mich App 459 ; 204 NW2d 269 (1972), lv den 393 Mich 813 (1975) (communication between attorney and client had ceased).

1975Defendant contends that this line of inquiry constituted an impermissible use of prior bad acts or misconduct for impeachment citing Wilbur v Flood, 16 Mich 40 ; 93 AD 203 (1867), and People v Hatt, 384 Mich 302 ; 181 NW2d 912 (1970).

1975Clearly, the trial court has broad discretion in exercising its judgment whether a particular line of inquiry or argument is to be allowed before the jury. 5 People v Dye, 356 Mich 271, 277 ; 96 NW2d 788 (1959).

1975Clearly, the trial court has broad discretion in exercising its judgment whether a particular line of inquiry or argument is to be allowed before the jury. 5 People v Dye, 356 Mich 271, 277 ; 96 NW2d 788 (1959).

1975Defendant contends that this line of inquiry constituted an impermissible use of prior bad acts or misconduct for impeachment citing Wilbur v Flood, 16 Mich 40 ; 93 AD 203 (1867), and People v Hatt, 384 Mich 302 ; 181 NW2d 912 (1970).

1975Defendant contends that this line of inquiry constituted an impermissible use of prior bad acts or misconduct for impeachment citing Wilbur v Flood, 16 Mich 40 ; 93 AD 203 (1867), and People v Hatt, 384 Mich 302 ; 181 NW2d 912 (1970).

1975This line of inquiry was allowed by our Supreme Court in People v LaLonde, 197 Mich 76 ; 163 NW 490 (1917), as affecting the credibility of the witness.

1975This line of inquiry was allowed by our Supreme Court in People v LaLonde, 197 Mich 76 ; 163 NW 490 (1917), as affecting the credibility of the witness.

1971This indicates recognition on the part of trial judges of the impolicy of this line of inquiry; in this very case the judge indicated his doubt about this line of inquiry but by then the damage had been done. 17 See People v. Foote (1892), 93 Mich 38, 40 ; People v. Nixon (1928), 243 Mich 630, 631 ; People v. Statkiewicz (1929), 247 Mich 260, 267 . 18 People v. Liggett (1967), 378 Mich 706, 717 .

1971This indicates recognition on the part of trial judges of the impolicy of this line of inquiry; in this very case the judge indicated his doubt about this line of inquiry but by then the damage had been done. 17 See People v. Foote (1892), 93 Mich 38, 40 ; People v. Nixon (1928), 243 Mich 630, 631 ; People v. Statkiewicz (1929), 247 Mich 260, 267 . 18 People v. Liggett (1967), 378 Mich 706, 717 .

1971This indicates recognition on the part of trial judges of the impolicy of this line of inquiry; in this very case the judge indicated his doubt about this line of inquiry but by then the damage had been done. 17 See People v. Foote (1892), 93 Mich 38, 40 ; People v. Nixon (1928), 243 Mich 630, 631 ; People v. Statkiewicz (1929), 247 Mich 260, 267 . 18 People v. Liggett (1967), 378 Mich 706, 717 .

1971This indicates recognition on the part of trial judges of the impolicy of this line of inquiry; in this very case the judge indicated his doubt about this line of inquiry but by then the damage had been done. 17 See People v. Foote (1892), 93 Mich 38, 40 ; People v. Nixon (1928), 243 Mich 630, 631 ; People v. Statkiewicz (1929), 247 Mich 260, 267 . 18 People v. Liggett (1967), 378 Mich 706, 717 .

1962Counsel for defendants objected to the line of inquiry on the ground that said statements, or at least some of them, were self-serving and that, in consequence, the testimony of the witness was incompetent under the holdings of this Coui’t in Mitts v. Williams, 319 Mich 417 , and Pence v. Wessels, 320 Mich 195 .

1962Counsel for defendants objected to the line of inquiry on the ground that said statements, or at least some of them, were self-serving and that, in consequence, the testimony of the witness was incompetent under the holdings of this Coui’t in Mitts v. Williams, 319 Mich 417 , and Pence v. Wessels, 320 Mich 195 .

1927Dec. 182 ) ; Bennett v. Bennett, 24 Mich. 482 ; Soper v. Soper, 29 Mich. 305 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 49 Mich. 639 ; Minde v. Minde, 65 Mich. 633 ; Reichert v. Reichert, 124 Mich. 694 ; Murnan v. Murnan, 128 Mich. 680 ; Downey v. Downey, 135 Mich. 265 ; Bowen v. Bowen, 179 Mich. 574 (51 L.

1927Dec. 182 ) ; Bennett v. Bennett, 24 Mich. 482 ; Soper v. Soper, 29 Mich. 305 ; Johnson v. Johnson, 49 Mich. 639 ; Minde v. Minde, 65 Mich. 633 ; Reichert v. Reichert, 124 Mich. 694 ; Murnan v. Murnan, 128 Mich. 680 ; Downey v. Downey, 135 Mich. 265 ; Bowen v. Bowen, 179 Mich. 574 (51 L.