claim of evidentiary error in Michigan

2019To preserve a claim of evidentiary error, “a party opposing the admission of evidence must object at trial and specify the same ground for objection that it asserts on appeal.” People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 113 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001), citing MRE 103(a)(1).

2019To preserve a claim of evidentiary error, “a party opposing the admission of evidence must object at trial and specify the same ground for objection that it asserts on appeal.” People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 113 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001), citing MRE 103(a)(1).

2024Id.

2016“If a defendant has failed to preserve a claim of evidentiary error, relief may be granted only upon a showing that a plain error affected the defendant’s substantial rights and that the defendant is actually innocent or the error ‘seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. (citation omitted).

2025See People v Vansickle, 303 Mich App 11, 117-118 ; 842 NW2d 289 (2013) (reviewing evidentiary issue raised in motion in limine as a preserved issue).

2025“To preserve an evidentiary issue for review, a party opposing the admission of evidence must object at trial and specify the same ground for objection that it asserts on appeal.” People v 1 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993). 2 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 43 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -2- Thorpe, 504 Mich 230 , 252; 934 NW2d 693 (2019); see also MRE 103(a)(1).3 A party’s pretrial motion in limine is sufficient to preserve a claim of evidentiary error.

2025“To preserve an evidentiary issue for review, a party opposing the admission of evidence must object at trial and specify the same ground for objection that it asserts on appeal.” People v 1 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993). 2 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 43 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -2- Thorpe, 504 Mich 230 , 252; 934 NW2d 693 (2019); see also MRE 103(a)(1).3 A party’s pretrial motion in limine is sufficient to preserve a claim of evidentiary error.

2025“To preserve an evidentiary issue for review, a party opposing the admission of evidence must object at trial and specify the same ground for objection that it asserts on appeal.” People v 1 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993). 2 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 43 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -2- Thorpe, 504 Mich 230 , 252; 934 NW2d 693 (2019); see also MRE 103(a)(1).3 A party’s pretrial motion in limine is sufficient to preserve a claim of evidentiary error.

2025“To preserve an evidentiary issue for review, a party opposing the admission of evidence must object at trial and specify the same ground for objection that it asserts on appeal.” People v 1 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc, 509 US 579 ; 113 S Ct 2786 ; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993). 2 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 43 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -2- Thorpe, 504 Mich 230 , 252; 934 NW2d 693 (2019); see also MRE 103(a)(1).3 A party’s pretrial motion in limine is sufficient to preserve a claim of evidentiary error.

2024People v Thorne, 322 Mich App 340, 352 ; 912 NW2d 560 (2017).

2024People v Thorne, 322 Mich App 340, 352 ; 912 NW2d 560 (2017).

2022Accordingly, Douglas did not consider whether a defense strategy might focus on the 2 Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). -4- introduction of a complainant’s out-of-court statements for the purpose of showing that the complainant’s trial testimony had been tainted by suggestive questioning and that the allegations had evolved from multiple interviews.

2022Accordingly, Douglas did not consider whether a defense strategy might focus on the 2 Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). -4- introduction of a complainant’s out-of-court statements for the purpose of showing that the complainant’s trial testimony had been tainted by suggestive questioning and that the allegations had evolved from multiple interviews.

2017Defendant’s argument is premised on People v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 353 ; 835 NW2d 319 (2013), wherein the Michigan Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of “out-of-court statements made in the context of an interrogation that comment on another person's credibility.” In particular, recognizing that hearsay is generally inadmissible under MRE 802 and that witnesses may not comment on another person’s credibility, the Court considered whether out- of-court statements by police during an interview might be admissible if they are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, such as when t

2017Defendant’s argument is premised on People v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 353 ; 835 NW2d 319 (2013), wherein the Michigan Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of “out-of-court statements made in the context of an interrogation that comment on another person's credibility.” In particular, recognizing that hearsay is generally inadmissible under MRE 802 and that witnesses may not comment on another person’s credibility, the Court considered whether out- of-court statements by police during an interview might be admissible if they are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, such as when t

2017If, as in this case, the claim of evidentiary error is nonconstitutional and preserved, “then it is presumed not to be a ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears that, more probably than not, it was outcome determinative—i.e., that it undermined the reliability of the verdict.” People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 257 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2017If, as in this case, the claim of evidentiary error is nonconstitutional and preserved, “then it is presumed not to be a ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears that, more probably than not, it was outcome determinative—i.e., that it undermined the reliability of the verdict.” People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 257 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2015When an evidentiary issue has been preserved on appeal, this Court generally reviews the trial court’s decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion, and reviews “de novo preliminary questions of law, such as whether a rule of evidence precludes admissibility.” People v Chelmicki, 305 Mich App 58, 62 ; 850 NW2d 612 (2014).

2015When an evidentiary issue has been preserved on appeal, this Court generally reviews the trial court’s decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion, and reviews “de novo preliminary questions of law, such as whether a rule of evidence precludes admissibility.” People v Chelmicki, 305 Mich App 58, 62 ; 850 NW2d 612 (2014).

2014Because we affirm the result of the Court of Appeals’ judgment, we need not reach the merits of Bynum’s cross-appeal and deny leave to cross-appeal, although many of the issues presented on cross-appeal are related to Sutherland’s testimony. 18 People v Bynum, 495 Mich 891 , 891-892 (2013). 19 People v McDaniel, 469 Mich 409, 412 ; 670 NW2d 659 (2003). 20 Id. 10 If a defendant has failed to preserve a claim of evidentiary error, relief may be granted only upon a showing that a plain error affected the defendant’s substantial rights and that the defendant is actually innocent or the error “seri

2014Because we affirm the result of the Court of Appeals’ judgment, we need not reach the merits of Bynum’s cross-appeal and deny leave to cross-appeal, although many of the issues presented on cross-appeal are related to Sutherland’s testimony. 18 People v Bynum, 495 Mich 891 , 891-892 (2013). 19 People v McDaniel, 469 Mich 409, 412 ; 670 NW2d 659 (2003). 20 Id. 10 If a defendant has failed to preserve a claim of evidentiary error, relief may be granted only upon a showing that a plain error affected the defendant’s substantial rights and that the defendant is actually innocent or the error “seri

2014“Reversal is warranted only when the plain, forfeited error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or when an error seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings independent of the defendant’s innocence.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999) (quotation marks and citations omitted, alteration in original).

2014“Reversal is warranted only when the plain, forfeited error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or when an error seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings independent of the defendant’s innocence.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999) (quotation marks and citations omitted, alteration in original).