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.
16 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1866–1992 0 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. Swangreen2 sentences1989If it is reasonably possible that, in a trial free of the error complained of, even one such jury member might have voted to acquit the defendant, then the error was not harmless, and the defendant must be retried. [People v Swan, 56 Mich App 22, 33 ; 223 NW2d 346 (1974).] Entirely apart from other error herein, the testimony of Nurse McNees was so prejudicial as to mandate retrial. 1989If it is reasonably possible that, in a trial free of the error complained of, even one such jury member might have voted to acquit the defendant, then the error was not harmless, and the defendant must be retried. [People v Swan, 56 Mich App 22, 33 ; 223 NW2d 346 (1974).] Entirely apart from other error herein, the testimony of Nurse McNees was so prejudicial as to mandate retrial. | 2 | 9 |
People v. Christensengreen2 sentences1981People v Christensen, 64 Mich App 23, 33 ; 235 NW2d 50 (1975). 1981People v Christensen, 64 Mich App 23, 33 ; 235 NW2d 50 (1975). | 1 | 4 |
People v. Cowellgreen2 sentences1988See People v Cowell, 44 Mich App 623, 627-628 ; 205 NW2d 600 (1973). [People v Leverette, 112 Mich App 142, 152 ; 315 NW2d 876 (1982).] The harmless error standard applicable to this type of problem requires us to reverse if the error was so offensive to the maintenance of the judicial system that it can never be deemed harmless or if, in a trial free of the error, one juror might have voted to acquit. 1988See People v Cowell, 44 Mich App 623, 627-628 ; 205 NW2d 600 (1973). [People v Leverette, 112 Mich App 142, 152 ; 315 NW2d 876 (1982).] The harmless error standard applicable to this type of problem requires us to reverse if the error was so offensive to the maintenance of the judicial system that it can never be deemed harmless or if, in a trial free of the error, one juror might have voted to acquit. | 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. Robinson
green
2 sentences1992People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551 ; 194 NW2d 709 (1972). 1992People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551 ; 194 NW2d 709 (1972). | 2 | 1977–1992 |
People v. Leverette
green
2 sentences1988See People v Cowell, 44 Mich App 623, 627-628 ; 205 NW2d 600 (1973). [People v Leverette, 112 Mich App 142, 152 ; 315 NW2d 876 (1982).] The harmless error standard applicable to this type of problem requires us to reverse if the error was so offensive to the maintenance of the judicial system that it can never be deemed harmless or if, in a trial free of the error, one juror might have voted to acquit. 1988See People v Cowell, 44 Mich App 623, 627-628 ; 205 NW2d 600 (1973). [People v Leverette, 112 Mich App 142, 152 ; 315 NW2d 876 (1982).] The harmless error standard applicable to this type of problem requires us to reverse if the error was so offensive to the maintenance of the judicial system that it can never be deemed harmless or if, in a trial free of the error, one juror might have voted to acquit. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Gallon
green
2 sentences1985It was the responsibility of the court to tell the jury which specific portions of the testimony should have been disregarded. "[I]f it is reasonably possible that in a trial free of the error complained of even one juror would have voted to acquit, the error was not harmless.” People v Gallon, 121 Mich App 183, 189 ; 328 NW2d 615 (1982). 1985It was the responsibility of the court to tell the jury which specific portions of the testimony should have been disregarded. "[I]f it is reasonably possible that in a trial free of the error complained of even one juror would have voted to acquit, the error was not harmless.” People v Gallon, 121 Mich App 183, 189 ; 328 NW2d 615 (1982). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Wilkins
green
2 sentences1979People v Wilkins, 82 Mich App 260, 272 ; 266 NW2d 781 (1978). 1979People v Wilkins, 82 Mich App 260, 272 ; 266 NW2d 781 (1978). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Insley
green
1 sentence1977To require a showing by defendant that the failure to sequester the witnesses resulted in such prejudice that the jury would have reached a different result as suggested by Insley, supra, is impossible. 1 Rather, the better approach is that an error is not harmless if it is reasonably possible that in a trial free of the error complained of, one juror might have voted to acquit the defendant. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Gentry v. McMinnis
green
1 sentence1866The law of Kentucky and Yirginia was, and for anything that I can find, still is, that being a white person, or having less than one-fourth of African blood, is prima, facie evidence of freedom. — ( 3 Dana, 382 ; 4 Grattan, 541.) In a free state this rule would make the person white by the judgment of my brethren. | 1 | 1866–1866 |
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.