preserved error in Michigan

2019The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding: (1) that the preserved error in admitting the rap videos was not outcome determinative; (2) that the unpreserved error in admitting the gang-affiliation testimony was not plain error; and (3) that the erroneously admitted evidence, in conjunction with the prosecutor's argument in closing that this evidence showed the "mentality" of defendant and his friends and the "lifestyle" they lived, did not constitute impermissible character evidence under MR

2019The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding: (1) that the preserved error in admitting the rap videos was not outcome determinative; (2) that the unpreserved error in admitting the gang-affiliation testimony was not plain error; and (3) that the erroneously admitted evidence, in conjunction with the prosecutor's argument in closing that this evidence showed the "mentality" of defendant and his friends and the "lifestyle" they lived, did not constitute impermissible character evidence under MR

2016Orr, 275 Mich App at 588 .

2016People v Orr, 275 Mich App 587, 588 ; 739 NW2d 385 (2007).

2025Although a preserved challenge to a trial court’s ruling admitting expert testimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 93 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007), the issue is reviewed for plain error when it is unpreserved.

2025Although a preserved challenge to a trial court’s ruling admitting expert testimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 93 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007), the issue is reviewed for plain error when it is unpreserved.

2018People v Abraham, 256 Mich App 265, 272 ; 662 NW2d 836 (2003).

2018People v Abraham, 256 Mich App 265, 272 ; 662 NW2d 836 (2003).

2022We review a preserved claim of prosecutorial error “de novo to determine whether the defendant was denied a fair trial.” People v Dunigan, 299 Mich App 579, 588 ; 831 NW2d 243 (2013).

2022We review a preserved claim of prosecutorial error “de novo to determine whether the defendant was denied a fair trial.” People v Dunigan, 299 Mich App 579, 588 ; 831 NW2d 243 (2013).

2018People v McPherson, 263 Mich App 124, 131 ; 687 NW2d 370 (2004).

2018People v McPherson, 263 Mich App 124, 131 ; 687 NW2d 370 (2004).

2014We need not reach these unpreserved issues, however, because we find the defendant’s preserved challenge dispositive. 15 As noted, we will not disturb a trial court’s decision to admit evidence unless that decision “falls outside the range of principled outcomes.” Musser, 494 Mich at 348 .

2014We need not reach these unpreserved issues, however, because we find the defendant’s preserved challenge dispositive. 15 As noted, we will not disturb a trial court’s decision to admit evidence unless that decision “falls outside the range of principled outcomes.” Musser, 494 Mich at 348 .

2017“A defendant’s preserved challenge to the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge on the basis that it violated the Equal Protection Clause is a mixed question of fact and law.” People v Armstrong, 305 Mich App 230, 237 ; 851 NW2d 856 (2014), citing People v Knight, 473 Mich 324, 342 ; 701 NW2d 715 (2005).

2017“A defendant’s preserved challenge to the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge on the basis that it violated the Equal Protection Clause is a mixed question of fact and law.” People v Armstrong, 305 Mich App 230, 237 ; 851 NW2d 856 (2014), citing People v Knight, 473 Mich 324, 342 ; 701 NW2d 715 (2005).

2015Finally, if an error is found, a preserved claim of evidentiary error will not require reversal “unless after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” People v Knapp, 244 Mich App 361, 378 ; 624 NW2d 227 (2001), quoting People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 496 ; 596 NW2d 607 (1999).

2015Finally, if an error is found, a preserved claim of evidentiary error will not require reversal “unless after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” People v Knapp, 244 Mich App 361, 378 ; 624 NW2d 227 (2001), quoting People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 496 ; 596 NW2d 607 (1999).

2018“A preserved error in the admission of evidence does not warrant reversal unless after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that it is more probable than not that -7- the error was outcome determinative.” Id., quoting People v Burns, 494 Mich 104, 110 ; 832 NW2d 738 (2013).

2016“A preserved error in the admission of evidence does not warrant reversal unless after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” People v Roscoe, 303 Mich App 633, 639 ; 846 NW2d 402 (2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). -4- 2.

2017In reviewing a preserved claim of instruction error, “this Court views the instructions as a whole to determine whether the issues to be tried were adequately presented to the jury.”16 The trial court’s decision regarding the applicability of a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court chooses an outcome that “falls outside the range of 11 Id. at 190 . 12 Id. at 178-179 . 13 Id. at 164 . 14 People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 657 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000). 15 People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 65 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). 16 People v Arms

2017In reviewing a preserved claim of instruction error, “this Court views the instructions as a whole to determine whether the issues to be tried were adequately presented to the jury.”16 The trial court’s decision regarding the applicability of a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court chooses an outcome that “falls outside the range of 11 Id. at 190 . 12 Id. at 178-179 . 13 Id. at 164 . 14 People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 657 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000). 15 People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 65 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). 16 People v Arms

2025A preserved challenge to the erroneous admission of evidence does not constitute grounds for reversal “unless, after an examination of the entire cause, it affirmatively appears that it is more 2 That sentence was imposed before our Legislature amended MCL 750.520b(2)(b) to mandate a minimum sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment for defendant’s offense of conviction. 3 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” People v King, 297 Mich App 465, 472 ; 824 NW2d 258 (2012).

2025A preserved challenge to the erroneous admission of evidence does not constitute grounds for reversal “unless, after an examination of the entire cause, it affirmatively appears that it is more 2 That sentence was imposed before our Legislature amended MCL 750.520b(2)(b) to mandate a minimum sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment for defendant’s offense of conviction. 3 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” People v King, 297 Mich App 465, 472 ; 824 NW2d 258 (2012).

2020People v Lockett, 295 Mich App 165, 182 ; 814 NW2d 295 (2012).

2020People v Lockett, 295 Mich App 165, 182 ; 814 NW2d 295 (2012).

2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens

2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens

2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens

2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens

2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens

2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens

2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens

2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens

2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens

2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens

2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens

2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens

2018We largely relied on People v Gursky, 486 Mich 596 ; 786 NW2d 579 (2010), a case that provided a framework for determining whether a preserved error in the admission of a hearsay statement warrants reversal under the harmless-error test that applies to preserved evidentiary questions.

2018We largely relied on People v Gursky, 486 Mich 596 ; 786 NW2d 579 (2010), a case that provided a framework for determining whether a preserved error in the admission of a hearsay statement warrants reversal under the harmless-error test that applies to preserved evidentiary questions.

2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens

2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens

2018People v Fink, 456 Mich 449, 458 ; 574 NW2d 28 (1998).

2018People v Fink, 456 Mich 449, 458 ; 574 NW2d 28 (1998).

2017People v Pfaffle, 246 Mich App 282, 288 ; 632 NW2d 162 (2001).

2017People v Pfaffle, 246 Mich App 282, 288 ; 632 NW2d 162 (2001).

2017A preserved claim of constitutional error is deemed harmless when this Court can determine “beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” People v Anderson (After Remand), 446 Mich 392, 405 ; 521 NW2d 538 (1994) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2017A preserved claim of constitutional error is deemed harmless when this Court can determine “beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” People v Anderson (After Remand), 446 Mich 392, 405 ; 521 NW2d 538 (1994) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2017A preserved error in the admission or exclusion of evidence only warrants reversal when it appears “more probable than not that the alleged error affected the outcome of the trial in light of the weight of the properly admitted evidence.” McLaughlin, 258 Mich App at 650 .

2017A preserved error in the admission or exclusion of evidence only warrants reversal when it appears “more probable than not that the alleged error affected the outcome of the trial in light of the weight of the properly admitted evidence.” McLaughlin, 258 Mich App at 650 .

2017Although defendant preserved the former argument by requesting that a voluntary manslaughter instruction be given, he failed to preserve his second argument by objecting to the court’s instruction at trial.75 When reviewing a preserved claim of instruction error, “this Court views the instructions as a whole to determine whether the issues to be tried were adequately presented to the jury.”76 The trial court’s decision regarding the applicability of a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court chooses an outcome that “falls outside the range of p

2012This evidence—if 85 Stevenson v United States, 162 US 313, 314-315 ; 16 S Ct 839 ; 40 L Ed 980 (1896) (emphasis added). 86 Washington v Texas, 388 US 14, 19 ; 87 S Ct 1920 ; 18 L Ed 2d 1019 (1967). 87 People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 774 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). 37 submitted to, and believed by, a jury—might establish impossibility.

2017People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 488 ; 596 NW2d 607 (1999). “[W]hether the admission of evidence would violate a defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation is a question of law that that we review de novo.” People v Dinardo, 290 Mich App 280, 287 ; 801 NW2d 73 (2010).

2017People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 488 ; 596 NW2d 607 (1999). “[W]hether the admission of evidence would violate a defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation is a question of law that that we review de novo.” People v Dinardo, 290 Mich App 280, 287 ; 801 NW2d 73 (2010).

2025A preserved challenge to the erroneous admission of evidence does not constitute grounds for reversal “unless, after an examination of the entire cause, it affirmatively appears that it is more 2 That sentence was imposed before our Legislature amended MCL 750.520b(2)(b) to mandate a minimum sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment for defendant’s offense of conviction. 3 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” People v King, 297 Mich App 465, 472 ; 824 NW2d 258 (2012).

2025A preserved challenge to the erroneous admission of evidence does not constitute grounds for reversal “unless, after an examination of the entire cause, it affirmatively appears that it is more 2 That sentence was imposed before our Legislature amended MCL 750.520b(2)(b) to mandate a minimum sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment for defendant’s offense of conviction. 3 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” People v King, 297 Mich App 465, 472 ; 824 NW2d 258 (2012).