witnesses defense in Michigan

2018In light of this record, the reliability of defendant’s conviction for owning a dangerous animal causing death is undermined by the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that a conviction under that statute “requires proof that the owner knew that his or her animal was a dangerous animal within the meaning of the dangerous animal statute before the incident at issue.” Janes, 302 Mich App at 38 .

2018In light of this record, the reliability of defendant’s conviction for owning a dangerous animal causing death is undermined by the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that a conviction under that statute “requires proof that the owner knew that his or her animal was a dangerous animal within the meaning of the dangerous animal statute before the incident at issue.” Janes, 302 Mich App at 38 .

1992Prosecution intimidation of witnesses has been condemned, People v Pena, 383 Mich 402 ; 175 NW2d 767 (1970), whether the witnesses are for the defense or the prosecution.

1992Prosecution intimidation of witnesses has been condemned, People v Pena, 383 Mich 402 ; 175 NW2d 767 (1970), whether the witnesses are for the defense or the prosecution.

2018In making these arguments, however, defendant does not acknowledge that when evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, this Court is required to resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the prosecution, People v Lockett, 295 Mich App 165, 180 ; 814 NW2d 295 (2012), that this deferential standard of review is the same whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, Nowack, 462 Mich at 400 , and that it is well established that “[c]ircumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence -5- can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime.” Id. (citation

2018In making these arguments, however, defendant does not acknowledge that when evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, this Court is required to resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the prosecution, People v Lockett, 295 Mich App 165, 180 ; 814 NW2d 295 (2012), that this deferential standard of review is the same whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, Nowack, 462 Mich at 400 , and that it is well established that “[c]ircumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence -5- can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime.” Id. (citation

2018In making these arguments, however, defendant does not acknowledge that when evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, this Court is required to resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the prosecution, People v Lockett, 295 Mich App 165, 180 ; 814 NW2d 295 (2012), that this deferential standard of review is the same whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, Nowack, 462 Mich at 400 , and that it is well established that “[c]ircumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence -5- can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime.” Id. (citation

1992People v Crabtree, 87 Mich App 722 ; 276 NW2d 478 (1979).

1992People v Crabtree, 87 Mich App 722 ; 276 NW2d 478 (1979).

1982Crawford, supra, 34 .

1982Crawford, supra, 34 .

1979People v Harley, 49 Mich App 729 ; 212 NW2d 810 (1973).

1979People v Harley, 49 Mich App 729 ; 212 NW2d 810 (1973).

1978When conflicting evidence is introduced and the determination of voluntariness depends to a large extent on the credibility of the witnesses at the hearing, deference will be given to the findings of the trial court, People v Smith, 80 Mich App 106 ; 263 NW2d 306 (1977); see also GCR 1963, 517.1.

1978When conflicting evidence is introduced and the determination of voluntariness depends to a large extent on the credibility of the witnesses at the hearing, deference will be given to the findings of the trial court, People v Smith, 80 Mich App 106 ; 263 NW2d 306 (1977); see also GCR 1963, 517.1.

1976Whatever I say or whatever Mr. Barkey says is not evidence.” (Defendant asserts that this remark was accompanied by a hand gesture towards the defense table, but the record neither supports nor refutes this.) It is urged that the prosecutor’s remark jeopardized the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, Griffin v California, 380 US 609 ; 85 S Ct 1229 ; 14 L Ed 2d 106 (1965), constituted a violation of the statute which proscribes adverse comment on a defendant’s failure to take the witness stand, MCLA 600.2159; MSA 27A.2159, and in effect coerced the defendant to tes

1976Whatever I say or whatever Mr. Barkey says is not evidence.” (Defendant asserts that this remark was accompanied by a hand gesture towards the defense table, but the record neither supports nor refutes this.) It is urged that the prosecutor’s remark jeopardized the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, Griffin v California, 380 US 609 ; 85 S Ct 1229 ; 14 L Ed 2d 106 (1965), constituted a violation of the statute which proscribes adverse comment on a defendant’s failure to take the witness stand, MCLA 600.2159; MSA 27A.2159, and in effect coerced the defendant to tes

1975The Campbell opinion held: "It can hardly be error to allow an idea to be expressed in language which is no stronger than other words which would convey the same meaning, and would yet be admissible on the issue.” Driscoll v People, 47 Mich 413, 418 ; 11 NW 221 (1882),_ *513 In People v Wirth, 108 Mich 307, 308-309 ; 66 NW 41 (1896), the prosecutor said: "I believe the evidence shows that they [the witnesses for the defense] are a lot of liars”.

1975The Campbell opinion held: "It can hardly be error to allow an idea to be expressed in language which is no stronger than other words which would convey the same meaning, and would yet be admissible on the issue.” Driscoll v People, 47 Mich 413, 418 ; 11 NW 221 (1882),_ *513 In People v Wirth, 108 Mich 307, 308-309 ; 66 NW 41 (1896), the prosecutor said: "I believe the evidence shows that they [the witnesses for the defense] are a lot of liars”.

1975The Campbell opinion held: "It can hardly be error to allow an idea to be expressed in language which is no stronger than other words which would convey the same meaning, and would yet be admissible on the issue.” Driscoll v People, 47 Mich 413, 418 ; 11 NW 221 (1882),_ *513 In People v Wirth, 108 Mich 307, 308-309 ; 66 NW 41 (1896), the prosecutor said: "I believe the evidence shows that they [the witnesses for the defense] are a lot of liars”.

1975The Campbell opinion held: "It can hardly be error to allow an idea to be expressed in language which is no stronger than other words which would convey the same meaning, and would yet be admissible on the issue.” Driscoll v People, 47 Mich 413, 418 ; 11 NW 221 (1882),_ *513 In People v Wirth, 108 Mich 307, 308-309 ; 66 NW 41 (1896), the prosecutor said: "I believe the evidence shows that they [the witnesses for the defense] are a lot of liars”.

1972In support of this contention, he cites People v McDonald, 13 Mich App 226 (1968), for the proposition that unexplained possession of recently stolen property unaccompanied by other facts or circumstances indicating guilt will not sustain a conviction of breaking and entering.

1971Totok v. Elfstrom (1966), 4 Mich App 705, 709 .

1936People v. Blue, 255 Mich. 675 ; People v. Smith, 257 Mich. 319 ; People v. Lummis, 260 Mich. 170 ; People v. Koukol, 262 Mich. 529 (87 A. L.

1936People v. Blue, 255 Mich. 675 ; People v. Smith, 257 Mich. 319 ; People v. Lummis, 260 Mich. 170 ; People v. Koukol, 262 Mich. 529 (87 A. L.

1936People v. Blue, 255 Mich. 675 ; People v. Smith, 257 Mich. 319 ; People v. Lummis, 260 Mich. 170 ; People v. Koukol, 262 Mich. 529 (87 A. L.

1936People v. Blue, 255 Mich. 675 ; People v. Smith, 257 Mich. 319 ; People v. Lummis, 260 Mich. 170 ; People v. Koukol, 262 Mich. 529 (87 A. L.