20 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hallgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., People v Hall, 433 Mich 573, 585-588 ; 447 NW2d 580 (1989) (plurality opinion of Boyle, J.) (characterizing this restrictive interpretation of MRE 404(b) as misguided, and explaining why the evidence at issue would be admissible under a proper understanding of the rule even though it did not satisfy the Golochowicz test). 2015See, e.g., People v Hall, 433 Mich 573, 585-588 ; 447 NW2d 580 (1989) (plurality opinion of Boyle, J.) (characterizing this restrictive interpretation of MRE 404(b) as misguided, and explaining why the evidence at issue would be admissible under a proper understanding of the rule even though it did not satisfy the Golochowicz test). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Golochowiczgreen2 sentences2026The Golochowicz test has been summarized: [A]t the time of trial[,] . . . before evidence of the defendant’s other misconduct may be admitted: (1) there must be substantial evidence that the defendant actually perpetrated the bad act sought to be introduced; (2) there must be some special quality or circumstance of the bad act tending to prove the defendant’s identity or the motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, scheme, plan or system in doing the act and, in light of the slightly difference language of MRE 404(b) we add, opportunity, preparation and knowledge; (3) one or more of the 2026The Golochowicz test has been summarized: [A]t the time of trial[,] . . . before evidence of the defendant’s other misconduct may be admitted: (1) there must be substantial evidence that the defendant actually perpetrated the bad act sought to be introduced; (2) there must be some special quality or circumstance of the bad act tending to prove the defendant’s identity or the motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, scheme, plan or system in doing the act and, in light of the slightly difference language of MRE 404(b) we add, opportunity, preparation and knowledge; (3) one or more of the | 1 | 10 |
People v. VanderVlietgreen2 sentences2015VanderVliet expressly dispelled this mischaracterization and its resulting incongruity, emphasizing that MRE 404(b) reflects an “inclusionary theory of admissibility” and clarifying that, while “Golochowicz identified] the requirements of logical relevance [for other-acts evidence] when the proponent is utilizing a modus operandi theory to prove identity,” that case did “not set the standard for the admissibility of other acts evidence” and “the courts of this state, including this Court,. .. have been too quick to recite the Golochowicz test even when it was probably inapplicable.” VanderVlie 2015VanderVliet expressly dispelled this mischaracterization and its resulting incongruity, emphasizing that MRE 404(b) reflects an “inclusionary theory of admissibility” and clarifying that, while “Golochowicz identified] the requirements of logical relevance [for other-acts evidence] when the proponent is utilizing a modus operandi theory to prove identity,” that case did “not set the standard for the admissibility of other acts evidence” and “the courts of this state, including this Court,. .. have been too quick to recite the Golochowicz test even when it was probably inapplicable.” VanderVlie | 1 | 4 |
People v. Starrgreen2 sentences2015See also, e.g., People v Starr, 457 Mich 490, 499 ; 577 NW2d 673 (1998) (noting that “MRE 404(b) specifically addresses the admissibility of uncharged conduct”). 6 MCL 768.27 provides: In any criminal case where the defendant’s motive, intent, the absence of, mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant’s scheme, plan or system in doing an act, is material, any like acts or other acts of the defendant which may tend to show his motive, intent, the absence of, mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant’s scheme, plan or system in doing the act, in question, may be proved, whether th 2015See also, e.g., People v Starr, 457 Mich 490, 499 ; 577 NW2d 673 (1998) (noting that “MRE 404(b) specifically addresses the admissibility of uncharged conduct”). 6 MCL 768.27 provides: In any criminal case where the defendant’s motive, intent, the absence of, mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant’s scheme, plan or system in doing an act, is material, any like acts or other acts of the defendant which may tend to show his motive, intent, the absence of, mistake or accident on his part, or the defendant’s scheme, plan or system in doing the act, in question, may be proved, whether th | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Waclawski
green
2 sentences2021To be admissible under the Golochowicz standard, four requirements must be met: “(1) there is substantial evidence that the defendant committed the similar act (2) there is some special quality of the act that tends to prove the defendant’s identity (3) the evidence is material to the defendant’s guilt, and (4) the probative value of the evidence sought to be introduced is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. [People v Waclawski, 286 Mich App 634, 673 ; 780 NW2d 321 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] The prosecutor argued that evidence of a 2012 home inv 2021To be admissible under the Golochowicz standard, four requirements must be met: “(1) there is substantial evidence that the defendant committed the similar act (2) there is some special quality of the act that tends to prove the defendant’s identity (3) the evidence is material to the defendant’s guilt, and (4) the probative value of the evidence sought to be introduced is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. [People v Waclawski, 286 Mich App 634, 673 ; 780 NW2d 321 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] The prosecutor argued that evidence of a 2012 home inv | 5 | 2018–2021 |
People v. Ho
green
2 sentences2018MRE 404(b) is a rule of inclusion, not exclusion. . . . [People v Pinkney, 316 Mich App 450, 474-475 ; 891 NW2d 891 (2016).] In People v Ho, 231 Mich App 178, 186 ; 585 NW2d 357 (1998), this Court found that “the four-part test of People v Golochowicz, 413 Mich 298, 309 ; 319 NW2d 518 (1982), remains valid to show logical relevance where similar-acts evidence is offered to show identification through modus operandi.” The Golochowicz test requires that (1) there is substantial evidence that the defendant committed the similar act (2) there is some special quality of the act that tends to prove 2018MRE 404(b) is a rule of inclusion, not exclusion. . . . [People v Pinkney, 316 Mich App 450, 474-475 ; 891 NW2d 891 (2016).] In People v Ho, 231 Mich App 178, 186 ; 585 NW2d 357 (1998), this Court found that “the four-part test of People v Golochowicz, 413 Mich 298, 309 ; 319 NW2d 518 (1982), remains valid to show logical relevance where similar-acts evidence is offered to show identification through modus operandi.” The Golochowicz test requires that (1) there is substantial evidence that the defendant committed the similar act (2) there is some special quality of the act that tends to prove | 5 | 2001–2018 |
People v. Pinkney
green
2 sentences2018MRE 404(b) is a rule of inclusion, not exclusion. . . . [People v Pinkney, 316 Mich App 450, 474-475 ; 891 NW2d 891 (2016).] In People v Ho, 231 Mich App 178, 186 ; 585 NW2d 357 (1998), this Court found that “the four-part test of People v Golochowicz, 413 Mich 298, 309 ; 319 NW2d 518 (1982), remains valid to show logical relevance where similar-acts evidence is offered to show identification through modus operandi.” The Golochowicz test requires that (1) there is substantial evidence that the defendant committed the similar act (2) there is some special quality of the act that tends to prove 2018MRE 404(b) is a rule of inclusion, not exclusion. . . . [People v Pinkney, 316 Mich App 450, 474-475 ; 891 NW2d 891 (2016).] In People v Ho, 231 Mich App 178, 186 ; 585 NW2d 357 (1998), this Court found that “the four-part test of People v Golochowicz, 413 Mich 298, 309 ; 319 NW2d 518 (1982), remains valid to show logical relevance where similar-acts evidence is offered to show identification through modus operandi.” The Golochowicz test requires that (1) there is substantial evidence that the defendant committed the similar act (2) there is some special quality of the act that tends to prove | 4 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Engelman
green
2 sentences1993Unfortunately, the courts of this state, including this Court, see Engelman, supra, have been too quick to recite the Golochowicz test even when it was probably inapplicable. 1993Unfortunately, the courts of this state, including this Court, see Engelman, supra, have been too quick to recite the Golochowicz test even when it was probably inapplicable. | 2 | 1990–1993 |
People v. Wilkins
green
2 sentences1993Other bad acts disclosed by evidence would have to be similar only if a basis for the relevance of the evidence is similarity.” [Emphasis in the original.] The prongs of the Golochowicz test were garnered from People v Wilkins, 82 Mich App 260 ; 266 NW2d 781 (1978), rev’d per curiam 408 Mich 69 ; 288 NW2d 583 (1980). 1993Other bad acts disclosed by evidence would have to be similar only if a basis for the relevance of the evidence is similarity.” [Emphasis in the original.] The prongs of the Golochowicz test were garnered from People v Wilkins, 82 Mich App 260 ; 266 NW2d 781 (1978), rev’d per curiam 408 Mich 69 ; 288 NW2d 583 (1980). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Oliphant
green
2 sentences1993Wilkins, p 270, cites People v Oliphant, 399 Mich 472 ; 250 NW2d 443 (1976), for its probative versus prejudice test. 1993Wilkins, p 270, cites People v Oliphant, 399 Mich 472 ; 250 NW2d 443 (1976), for its probative versus prejudice test. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Wilkins
neutral
2 sentences1993Other bad acts disclosed by evidence would have to be similar only if a basis for the relevance of the evidence is similarity.” [Emphasis in the original.] The prongs of the Golochowicz test were garnered from People v Wilkins, 82 Mich App 260 ; 266 NW2d 781 (1978), rev’d per curiam 408 Mich 69 ; 288 NW2d 583 (1980). 1993Other bad acts disclosed by evidence would have to be similar only if a basis for the relevance of the evidence is similarity.” [Emphasis in the original.] The prongs of the Golochowicz test were garnered from People v Wilkins, 82 Mich App 260 ; 266 NW2d 781 (1978), rev’d per curiam 408 Mich 69 ; 288 NW2d 583 (1980). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.