Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2022 1 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. Carinesgreen2 sentences2018See Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . 2018See Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . | 4 | 4 |
People v. Magyargreen2 sentences2019See Denson, 500 Mich at 398 (the fourth prong of VanderVliet allows a limiting instruction to be given); People v Magyar, 250 Mich App 408, 416 ; 648 NW2d 215 (2002) (“This Court has indicated that a limiting instruction such as this one that cautions the jury not to infer that a defendant had a bad character and acted in accordance with that character -6- can protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.”). 2019See Denson, 500 Mich at 398 (the fourth prong of VanderVliet allows a limiting instruction to be given); People v Magyar, 250 Mich App 408, 416 ; 648 NW2d 215 (2002) (“This Court has indicated that a limiting instruction such as this one that cautions the jury not to infer that a defendant had a bad character and acted in accordance with that character -6- can protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Duenazgreen1 sentence2018See Duenaz, 306 Mich App at 100 . | 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. Starr
green
2 sentences2015People v Starr, 457 Mich 490, 496 ; 577 NW2d 673 (1998); People v Ackerman, 257 Mich App 434 , 439–440; 669 NW2d 818 (2003). 2015People v Starr, 457 Mich 490, 496 ; 577 NW2d 673 (1998); People v Ackerman, 257 Mich App 434 , 439–440; 669 NW2d 818 (2003). | 3 | 2014–2015 |
People v. VanderVliet
green
2 sentences2022People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52, 74-75 ; 508 NW2d 114 (1993). 2022People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52, 74-75 ; 508 NW2d 114 (1993). | 2 | 2016–2022 |
People v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2018Additionally, the trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction regarding the use of this other-acts evidence. “[U]pon request, the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury under MRE 105 to specify that the jury may consider the evidence only for proper, noncharacter purposes.” People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 260 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015). 2018Additionally, the trial court gave the jury a limiting instruction regarding the use of this other-acts evidence. “[U]pon request, the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury under MRE 105 to specify that the jury may consider the evidence only for proper, noncharacter purposes.” People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 260 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Roscoe
green
2 sentences2017Limiting instructions “can help to alleviate the danger of unfair prejudice, given that jurors are presumed to follow their instructions.” Roscoe, 303 Mich App at 646 . 2017Limiting instructions “can help to alleviate the danger of unfair prejudice, given that jurors are presumed to follow their instructions.” Roscoe, 303 Mich App at 646 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Yost
green
2 sentences2017Moreover, such matters may be explored during cross-examination of a witness, see MRE 608(b); MRE 611(c), and the trial court also gave the jury a limiting instruction regarding the proper use of the testimony about the prior incident, MRE 105; Yost, 278 Mich App at 355 . 2017Moreover, such matters may be explored during cross-examination of a witness, see MRE 608(b); MRE 611(c), and the trial court also gave the jury a limiting instruction regarding the proper use of the testimony about the prior incident, MRE 105; Yost, 278 Mich App at 355 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Ackerman
green
2 sentences2015People v Starr, 457 Mich 490, 496 ; 577 NW2d 673 (1998); People v Ackerman, 257 Mich App 434 , 439–440; 669 NW2d 818 (2003). 2015People v Starr, 457 Mich 490, 496 ; 577 NW2d 673 (1998); People v Ackerman, 257 Mich App 434 , 439–440; 669 NW2d 818 (2003). | 2 | 2014–2015 |
People v. Waclawski
green
1 sentence2015People v Starr, 457 Mich 490, 496 ; 577 NW2d 673 (1998); Waclawski, 286 Mich App at 671 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.