conviction instruction in Michigan

2018People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 302 ; 521 NW2d 797 (1994). -2- An appellate court is required to reverse a defendant’s conviction when defense “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland, 466 US at 687 .

2018People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 302 ; 521 NW2d 797 (1994). -2- An appellate court is required to reverse a defendant’s conviction when defense “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland, 466 US at 687 .

2018A defendant requesting reversal of an otherwise valid conviction bears the burden of proving “(1) the performance of his counsel was below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, in the absence of counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 659 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000).

2018A defendant requesting reversal of an otherwise valid conviction bears the burden of proving “(1) the performance of his counsel was below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, in the absence of counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 659 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000).

2025Jury instructions must include “all elements of the charged offenses and any material issues, defenses, and theories if supported by the evidence.” Id., citing -4- People v McGhee, 268 Mich App 600, 606 ; 709 NW2d 595 (2005). “[A]n imperfect instruction is not grounds for setting aside a conviction if the instruction fairly presented the issues to be tried and adequately protected the defendant’s rights.” Id. (citation omitted).

2025Jury instructions must include “all elements of the charged offenses and any material issues, defenses, and theories if supported by the evidence.” Id., citing -4- People v McGhee, 268 Mich App 600, 606 ; 709 NW2d 595 (2005). “[A]n imperfect instruction is not grounds for setting aside a conviction if the instruction fairly presented the issues to be tried and adequately protected the defendant’s rights.” Id. (citation omitted).

2018People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 302 ; 521 NW2d 797 (1994). -2- An appellate court is required to reverse a defendant’s conviction when defense “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland, 466 US at 687 .

2018People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 302 ; 521 NW2d 797 (1994). -2- An appellate court is required to reverse a defendant’s conviction when defense “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland, 466 US at 687 .

2025MRE 609 “creates a presumption that evidence of prior convictions is inadmissible to impeach a witness’s credibility.” People v Snyder, 301 Mich App 99, 105 ; 835 NW2d 698 (2013).

2022Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date. -4- MRE 609 “creates a presumption that evidence of prior convictions is inadmissible to impeach a witness’s credibility,” Snyder, 301 Mich App at 105 , but this presumption is overcome by demonstrating either that the prior conviction contained an element of dishonesty or false statement, MRE 609(a)(1), or that the prior conviction contained an e

2020“When this Court reviews jury instructions for reversible error, we consider the instructions as a whole,” People v Richardson, 490 Mich 115, 119 ; 803 NW2d 302 (2011), and “an imperfect instruction is not grounds for setting aside a conviction if the instruction fairly presented the issues to be tried and adequately protected the defendant’s rights,” People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 501-502 ; 803 NW2d 200 (2011).

2020“When this Court reviews jury instructions for reversible error, we consider the instructions as a whole,” People v Richardson, 490 Mich 115, 119 ; 803 NW2d 302 (2011), and “an imperfect instruction is not grounds for setting aside a conviction if the instruction fairly presented the issues to be tried and adequately protected the defendant’s rights,” People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 501-502 ; 803 NW2d 200 (2011).

2020Defendant argues that the jury verdict form used in this case is similar to the form that was found to be improper in People v Wade, 283 Mich App 462, 465 ; 771 NW2d 447 (2009).

2020Defendant argues that the jury verdict form used in this case is similar to the form that was found to be improper in People v Wade, 283 Mich App 462, 465 ; 771 NW2d 447 (2009).

2018People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 368 ; 649 NW2d 94 (2002). 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443-444 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- An appellate court is required to reverse a defendant’s conviction when defense “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984).

2018People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 368 ; 649 NW2d 94 (2002). 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443-444 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- An appellate court is required to reverse a defendant’s conviction when defense “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984).

2018People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 368 ; 649 NW2d 94 (2002). 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443-444 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- An appellate court is required to reverse a defendant’s conviction when defense “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984).

2018People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 368 ; 649 NW2d 94 (2002). 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443-444 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- An appellate court is required to reverse a defendant’s conviction when defense “counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984).

1990In Miller, supra, our Supreme Court rejected the notion that a showing of prejudice was required in order to reverse a conviction for violation of the court rule.

1990In Miller, supra, our Supreme Court rejected the notion that a showing of prejudice was required in order to reverse a conviction for violation of the court rule.

2025Even if imperfect, an instruction “is not grounds for setting aside a conviction if the instruction fairly presented the issues to be tried and adequately protected the defendant’s rights.” Kowalski, 489 Mich at 501-502 . “[I]f an applicable instruction is not given, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that the trial court’s failure to give the requested instruction resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” Riddle, 467 Mich at 124 .

2025A conviction will be reversed only if, “after examining the nature of the error in light of the weight and strength of the untainted evidence, it affirmatively appears that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” Id. at 124-125 . 1.

2025In making this determination, the reviewing court should focus on the nature of the error in light of the weight and strength of the untainted evidence. [People v Elston, 462 Mich 751, 766 ; 614 NW2d 595 (2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] “Instructional errors that omit an element of an offense, or otherwise misinform the jury of an offense’s elements, do not necessarily render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence.” Kowalski, 489 Mich at 501 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A]n imperfect instruction is not grou

2025In making this determination, the reviewing court should focus on the nature of the error in light of the weight and strength of the untainted evidence. [People v Elston, 462 Mich 751, 766 ; 614 NW2d 595 (2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] “Instructional errors that omit an element of an offense, or otherwise misinform the jury of an offense’s elements, do not necessarily render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence.” Kowalski, 489 Mich at 501 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A]n imperfect instruction is not grou

2025MRE 609 “creates a presumption that evidence of prior convictions is inadmissible to impeach a witness’s credibility.” People v Snyder, 301 Mich App 99, 105 ; 835 NW2d 698 (2013).

2024With regard to whether a detention was lawful, under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968), the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution allows an officer to detain an individual for a brief investigatory stop if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in, or is about to be engaged in, criminal activity.

2020“Trial counsel is not required to advocate a meritless position.” People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 425 ; 608 NW2d 502 (2000).

2020“Trial counsel is not required to advocate a meritless position.” People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 425 ; 608 NW2d 502 (2000).

2020An imperfect instruction, however, “is not grounds for setting aside a conviction if the instruction fairly presented the issues to be tried and adequately protected the defendant’s rights.” Id. (cleaned up).

2020In the context of aggravated assault, this Court has defined a serious or aggravated injury as “a physical injury that requires immediate medical treatment or that causes disfigurement, impairment of health, or impairment of a part of the body.” People v Norris, 236 Mich App 411 , 415 n 3; 600 NW2d 658 (1999).

2020In the context of aggravated assault, this Court has defined a serious or aggravated injury as “a physical injury that requires immediate medical treatment or that causes disfigurement, impairment of health, or impairment of a part of the body.” People v Norris, 236 Mich App 411 , 415 n 3; 600 NW2d 658 (1999).

2018A defendant requesting reversal of an otherwise valid conviction bears the burden of proving “(1) the performance of his counsel was below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, in the absence of counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 659 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000). -5- To prove the first prong, “[t]he defendant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel’s assistance constituted sound trial strategy.” People

2018A defendant requesting reversal of an otherwise valid conviction bears the burden of proving “(1) the performance of his counsel was below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, in the absence of counsel’s unprofessional errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 659 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000). -5- To prove the first prong, “[t]he defendant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel’s assistance constituted sound trial strategy.” People

2017“To pass scrutiny, a reasonable doubt instruction, when read in its entirety, must leave no doubt in the mind of the reviewing court that the jury understood the burden that was placed upon the prosecutor and what constituted a reasonable doubt.” People v Hubbard (After Remand), 217 Mich App 459, 487 ; 552 NW2d 493 (1996), overruled in part on other grounds by People v Harris, 495 Mich 120 (2014), and People v Bryant, 491 Mich 575 (2012).

2017“To pass scrutiny, a reasonable doubt instruction, when read in its entirety, must leave no doubt in the mind of the reviewing court that the jury understood the burden that was placed upon the prosecutor and what constituted a reasonable doubt.” People v Hubbard (After Remand), 217 Mich App 459, 487 ; 552 NW2d 493 (1996), overruled in part on other grounds by People v Harris, 495 Mich 120 (2014), and People v Bryant, 491 Mich 575 (2012).

2017“To pass scrutiny, a reasonable doubt instruction, when read in its entirety, must leave no doubt in the mind of the reviewing court that the jury understood the burden that was placed upon the prosecutor and what constituted a reasonable doubt.” People v Hubbard (After Remand), 217 Mich App 459, 487 ; 552 NW2d 493 (1996), overruled in part on other grounds by People v Harris, 495 Mich 120 (2014), and People v Bryant, 491 Mich 575 (2012).

2017“To pass scrutiny, a reasonable doubt instruction, when read in its entirety, must leave no doubt in the mind of the reviewing court that the jury understood the burden that was placed upon the prosecutor and what constituted a reasonable doubt.” People v Hubbard (After Remand), 217 Mich App 459, 487 ; 552 NW2d 493 (1996), overruled in part on other grounds by People v Harris, 495 Mich 120 (2014), and People v Bryant, 491 Mich 575 (2012).