unpreserved nonconstitutional claim in Michigan

2019Veltman v Detroit Edison Co, 261 Mich App 685, 690 ; 683 NW2d 707 (2004).

2019“An unpreserved nonconstitutional claim of error is reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights.” Rental Props Owners Ass’n of Kent Co v Kent Co Treasurer, 308 Mich App 10 It is clear from defendant’s initial communications with plaintiff that defendant primarily sought (1) clarification as to whether plaintiff was authorized to drive the vehicle in which he was injured, and (2) medical or pharmaceutical bills that could provide reasonable proof of loss. -11- 498, 532; 866 NW2d 817 (2014), citing People v Grant, 445 Mich 535, 552-553 ; 520 NW2d 123 (1994), and Veltman v Detroit Ediso

2019Veltman v Detroit Edison Co, 261 Mich App 685, 690 ; 683 NW2d 707 (2004).

2019“An unpreserved nonconstitutional claim of error is reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights.” Rental Props Owners Ass’n of Kent Co v Kent Co Treasurer, 308 Mich App 10 It is clear from defendant’s initial communications with plaintiff that defendant primarily sought (1) clarification as to whether plaintiff was authorized to drive the vehicle in which he was injured, and (2) medical or pharmaceutical bills that could provide reasonable proof of loss. -11- 498, 532; 866 NW2d 817 (2014), citing People v Grant, 445 Mich 535, 552-553 ; 520 NW2d 123 (1994), and Veltman v Detroit Ediso

2015People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2015People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2026Therefore, we review this unpreserved nonconstitutional challenge to the restitution order “for plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights.” Id.

2026“Restitution is afforded both by statute and by the Michigan Constitution.” Id.

2022Counsel must state the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context.” Nahshal v Fremont Ins Co, 324 Mich App 696, 709-710 ; 922 NW2d 662 (2018) (cleaned up); see also In re Snyder, 223 Mich App at 92 (noting that “there was no objection on this basis [i.e., a specific hearsay objection] or request for [a] foundational hearing, presenting this court with unpreserved nonconstitutional error”).

2022Counsel must state the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context.” Nahshal v Fremont Ins Co, 324 Mich App 696, 709-710 ; 922 NW2d 662 (2018) (cleaned up); see also In re Snyder, 223 Mich App at 92 (noting that “there was no objection on this basis [i.e., a specific hearsay objection] or request for [a] foundational hearing, presenting this court with unpreserved nonconstitutional error”).

2020As stated above, the error in this case is an unpreserved nonconstitutional error, and will not be reversed unless the error “resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Callon, 256 Mich App at 329 . -3- Here, defendant cannot establish that Lessnau’s testimony resulted in a miscarriage of justice because the jury heard overwhelming evidence that defendant operated an unlicensed gambling operation and the jury instructions provided an accurate description of the law.

2019“To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: 1) the error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” Bennett v Russell, 322 Mich App 638, 643 ; 913 NW2d 364 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2019“To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: 1) the error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” Bennett v Russell, 322 Mich App 638, 643 ; 913 NW2d 364 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2019“An unpreserved nonconstitutional claim of error is reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights.” Rental Props Owners Ass’n of Kent Co v Kent Co Treasurer, 308 Mich App 10 It is clear from defendant’s initial communications with plaintiff that defendant primarily sought (1) clarification as to whether plaintiff was authorized to drive the vehicle in which he was injured, and (2) medical or pharmaceutical bills that could provide reasonable proof of loss. -11- 498, 532; 866 NW2d 817 (2014), citing People v Grant, 445 Mich 535, 552-553 ; 520 NW2d 123 (1994), and Veltman v Detroit Ediso

1995Despite the fact that both the victim and the truck driver might have been considered negligent, the court did not disturb the jury's determination that the defendants had "cause[d] the death of another...." Id. at 413 . [12] Given that the instructions in Tims were sufficient to protect the defendant's rights, the dissent's implicit assertion that the test for harmlessness of an unpreserved nonconstitutional error is whether the error was harmless "beyond a reasonable doubt," post at 128, is erroneous.