granted defense in Michigan

2023People v Green, 260 Mich App 392, 399-400 ; 677 NW2d 363 (2004), overruled on other grounds by People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436 ; 719 NW2d 579 (2006). -9- counsel’s request to refer defendant to pretrial services, impaired defendant’s right to participate in his defense.

2023People v Green, 260 Mich App 392, 399-400 ; 677 NW2d 363 (2004), overruled on other grounds by People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436 ; 719 NW2d 579 (2006). -9- counsel’s request to refer defendant to pretrial services, impaired defendant’s right to participate in his defense.

2023People v Green, 260 Mich App 392, 399-400 ; 677 NW2d 363 (2004), overruled on other grounds by People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436 ; 719 NW2d 579 (2006). -9- counsel’s request to refer defendant to pretrial services, impaired defendant’s right to participate in his defense.

2023People v Green, 260 Mich App 392, 399-400 ; 677 NW2d 363 (2004), overruled on other grounds by People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436 ; 719 NW2d 579 (2006). -9- counsel’s request to refer defendant to pretrial services, impaired defendant’s right to participate in his defense.

2025But defense counsel acknowledged that, because Pruitt would be subject to cross-examination, calling her as a witness “jeopardizes” the defense. “[D]ecisions regarding what evidence to present and whether to call or question witnesses are presumed to be matters of trial strategy, which we will not second-guess with the benefit of hindsight.” People v Dixon, 263 Mich App 393, 39 ; 688 NW2d 308 (2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025But defense counsel acknowledged that, because Pruitt would be subject to cross-examination, calling her as a witness “jeopardizes” the defense. “[D]ecisions regarding what evidence to present and whether to call or question witnesses are presumed to be matters of trial strategy, which we will not second-guess with the benefit of hindsight.” People v Dixon, 263 Mich App 393, 39 ; 688 NW2d 308 (2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2019In People v Gonzalez-Raymundo, 308 Mich App 175, 181-182 ; 862 NW2d 657 (2014), the trial court appointed a Spanish interpreter, but at the start of trial, the trial court granted defense counsel’s request to waive the interpreter’s services because of the possible prejudice that defense counsel speculated such services might have on the jury, and the interpreter would then “explain things to the defendant on break.” The Gonzalez-Raymundo Court concluded that this was not a valid waiver because defendant did not personally waive his right, and “[t]he lack of simultaneous translation implicated

2019In People v Gonzalez-Raymundo, 308 Mich App 175, 181-182 ; 862 NW2d 657 (2014), the trial court appointed a Spanish interpreter, but at the start of trial, the trial court granted defense counsel’s request to waive the interpreter’s services because of the possible prejudice that defense counsel speculated such services might have on the jury, and the interpreter would then “explain things to the defendant on break.” The Gonzalez-Raymundo Court concluded that this was not a valid waiver because defendant did not personally waive his right, and “[t]he lack of simultaneous translation implicated

2006Similarly, in State v Schaaf, 169 Ariz 323; 819 P2d 909 (Ariz, 1991), the trial court granted the defense counsel’s motion to withdraw after his appointment to a judgeship and granted a continuance for the appointment of new defense counsel.

1996Id. at 276 . *28 This Court has already grappled with this same issue in Seymour, supra. In that case, the respondent township granted the petitioner the right to the exclusive use, control, and operation of a golf course on property owned by the township.

1996Id. at 276 . *28 This Court has already grappled with this same issue in Seymour, supra. In that case, the respondent township granted the petitioner the right to the exclusive use, control, and operation of a golf course on property owned by the township.

1994This Court granted the defense motion to remand for a dismissal of the cause, pursuant to People v Elauim, 393 Mich 601 ; 227 NW2d 553 (1975).

1994This Court granted the defense motion to remand for a dismissal of the cause, pursuant to People v Elauim, 393 Mich 601 ; 227 NW2d 553 (1975).

1982In People v Browning (On Rehearing), 108 Mich App 281 ; 310 NW2d 365 (1981), the trial court granted the defense discovery motion requesting discovery of "’all written statements made by or taken from witnesses or other persons having knowledge of the matters alleged in the information.’ ” Id., 305 .

1982In People v Browning (On Rehearing), 108 Mich App 281 ; 310 NW2d 365 (1981), the trial court granted the defense discovery motion requesting discovery of "’all written statements made by or taken from witnesses or other persons having knowledge of the matters alleged in the information.’ ” Id., 305 .

1982The defense is unclear as to whether it specifically appeals the trial court’s ruling indorsing Battle, but People v Meadows, 80 Mich App 680, 690 ; 263 NW2d 903 (1977), authorizes the late indorsement of witnesses where a continuance is granted which *747 obviates any prejudice arising from surprise or lack of time to prepare for cross-examination. (2) The defendants claim that the trial court erred in ruling that Milton Battle could be dropped as a prosecution witness.

1982The defense is unclear as to whether it specifically appeals the trial court’s ruling indorsing Battle, but People v Meadows, 80 Mich App 680, 690 ; 263 NW2d 903 (1977), authorizes the late indorsement of witnesses where a continuance is granted which *747 obviates any prejudice arising from surprise or lack of time to prepare for cross-examination. (2) The defendants claim that the trial court erred in ruling that Milton Battle could be dropped as a prosecution witness.

1966Nor ’the Michigan cases on point, we find Newman v. City of Detroit (1937), 281 Mich 60 , and LaBlue v. Specker (1960), 358 Mich 558 .

1966Nor ’the Michigan cases on point, we find Newman v. City of Detroit (1937), 281 Mich 60 , and LaBlue v. Specker (1960), 358 Mich 558 .

1966Becognizing that the facts are reviewed de novo on the record on this appeal, Cullum v. Topps-Stillman’s, Inc. (1965), 1 Mich App 92 , the burden of proof is plaintiffs insofar as they assert a right to be credited with any controverted item involved in *358 the accounting.

1943As an owner, he had the privilege under this section of the statute of matching the highest bid at the “scavenger sale” and thereby redeeming his property, but: “The right to match the highest bid at the scavenger sale is a granted privilege, limited to persons having an interest in the land at the time of the sale for unpaid taxes.” Redford Union Schools v. State Land Office Board, 297 Mich. 535, 537 .