interpretation rule in Michigan

2023“A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law in the interpretation of a rule of evidence.” People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 257 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015).

2023“A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law in the interpretation of a rule of evidence.” People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 257 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015).

2019The trial court also abuses its discretion “when it makes an error of law in the interpretation of a rule of evidence.” People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 257 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015), citing People v Duncan, 494 Mich 713, 723 ; 835 NW2d 399 (2013).

2018“A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law in the interpretation of a rule of evidence.” People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 257 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015), citing Duncan, 494 Mich at 723 .

2020An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court “makes an error of law in the interpretation of a rule of evidence,” People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 257 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015), or where the trial court’s decision “falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes[.]” People v Swain, 288 Mich App 609, 628-629 ; 794 NW2d 92 (2010).

2020An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court “makes an error of law in the interpretation of a rule of evidence,” People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 257 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015), or where the trial court’s decision “falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes[.]” People v Swain, 288 Mich App 609, 628-629 ; 794 NW2d 92 (2010).

2017The rules of statutory interpretation apply equally to the construction of administrative rules, and thus the interpretation of a rule is "governed by its plain language." Danse Corp. v. City of Madison Hts. , 466 Mich. 175 , 184, 644 N.W.2d 721 (2002).

2017The rules of statutory interpretation apply equally to the construction of administrative rules, and thus the interpretation of a rule is "governed by its plain language." Danse Corp. v. City of Madison Hts. , 466 Mich. 175 , 184, 644 N.W.2d 721 (2002).

2018“Evidence is generally admissible if it is relevant, MRE 402, i.e., if it has ‘any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence,’ MRE 401.” People v Davis, 320 Mich App 484 , 488; 905 NW2d 482 (2017), lv gtd in part on other grounds ___ Mich ___; 910 NW2d 301 (2018).

2018“Evidence is generally admissible if it is relevant, MRE 402, i.e., if it has ‘any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence,’ MRE 401.” People v Davis, 320 Mich App 484 , 488; 905 NW2d 482 (2017), lv gtd in part on other grounds ___ Mich ___; 910 NW2d 301 (2018).

2017Grievance Administrator v Fieger, 476 Mich 231, 240 ; 719 NW2d 123 (2006).

2017Grievance Administrator v Fieger, 476 Mich 231, 240 ; 719 NW2d 123 (2006).

1992The requirements for the admission of expert testimony are: (1) the witness must be an expert; (2) there must be facts which require an expert’s interpretation or analysis; and (3) the witness’ knowledge must be peculiar to experts rather than to lay persons. [Jack Loeks Theatres, Inc v Kentwood, 189 Mich App 603, 611 ; 474 NW2d 140 (1991), citing O’Dowd v Linehan, 385 Mich 491, 509-510 ; 189 NW2d 333 (1971).] The decision whether to admit expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.

1992The requirements for the admission of expert testimony are: (1) the witness must be an expert; (2) there must be facts which require an expert’s interpretation or analysis; and (3) the witness’ knowledge must be peculiar to experts rather than to lay persons. [Jack Loeks Theatres, Inc v Kentwood, 189 Mich App 603, 611 ; 474 NW2d 140 (1991), citing O’Dowd v Linehan, 385 Mich 491, 509-510 ; 189 NW2d 333 (1971).] The decision whether to admit expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.

2025Justice CAVANAGH, concurring, agreed with the Court’s decision to remand this case for a new trial but wrote separately to emphasize a concern that the Court has not directly addressed: whether the Court’s interpretation of the standard of review for preserved, nonconstitutional errors under MCL 769.26 announced in People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999), should be revisited given its apparent inconsistency with the standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 (1984).

2025I write separately to emphasize a concern that has previously been raised, but not directly addressed, by this Court: whether this Court’s interpretation of the standard of review for preserved, nonconstitutional errors under MCL 769.26 that we announced in People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484 ; 596 NW2d 607 (1999), should be revisited given its apparent inconsistency with the standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 688 ; 104 S Ct 2052 , 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). 1 The inconsistency is evident when examining the language of each standard.

2023Under Michigan’s evidentiary rules, “[h]earsay is an unsworn, out-of-court statement that is offered to establish the truth of the matter asserted.” People v Stamper, 480 Mich 1, 3 ; 742 NW2d 607 (2007), citing MRE 801(c).

2023Under Michigan’s evidentiary rules, “[h]earsay is an unsworn, out-of-court statement that is offered to establish the truth of the matter asserted.” People v Stamper, 480 Mich 1, 3 ; 742 NW2d 607 (2007), citing MRE 801(c).

2021A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of “reasonable and principled” outcomes, see People v Orr, 275 Mich App 587, 589 ; 739 NW2d 385 (2007), or “makes an error of law in the interpretation of a rule of evidence,” People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 257 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015).

2021A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of “reasonable and principled” outcomes, see People v Orr, 275 Mich App 587, 589 ; 739 NW2d 385 (2007), or “makes an error of law in the interpretation of a rule of evidence,” People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 257 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015).

2020United Parcel Serv, Inc v Bureau of Safety & Regulation, 277 Mich App 192, 202 ; 745 NW2d 125 (2007).

2020United Parcel Serv, Inc v Bureau of Safety & Regulation, 277 Mich App 192, 202 ; 745 NW2d 125 (2007).

2020People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 269 ; 666 NW2d 231 (2003).

2020People v Babcock, 469 Mich 247, 269 ; 666 NW2d 231 (2003).

2020We review the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when a trial court “makes an error of law in the interpretation of a rule of evidence.” Id.

2019However, even if the trial court errs in admitting evidence, this Court presumes that the error is not “a ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears that, more probably than not, it was outcome determinative—i.e., that it undermined the reliability of the verdict.” Jackson, 498 Mich at 257 , citing People v Douglas, 496 Mich 557, 565-566 ; 852 NW2d 587 (2014) (quotation marks omitted).

2019However, even if the trial court errs in admitting evidence, this Court presumes that the error is not “a ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears that, more probably than not, it was outcome determinative—i.e., that it undermined the reliability of the verdict.” Jackson, 498 Mich at 257 , citing People v Douglas, 496 Mich 557, 565-566 ; 852 NW2d 587 (2014) (quotation marks omitted).

2018Further, “[a] trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes[.]” People v Swain, 288 Mich App 609, 628-629 ; 794 NW2d 92 (2010), citing People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 217 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008).

2018Further, “[a] trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes[.]” People v Swain, 288 Mich App 609, 628-629 ; 794 NW2d 92 (2010), citing People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 217 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008).

2017Id. at 65-66 , 678 N.W.2d 444 .

2017Id. at 65-66 , 678 N.W.2d 444 .

2016Northwestern Nat’l Casualty Co, 231 Mich App at 488 .

2016In Thies, 424 Mich at 287-288 , our Supreme Court reflected on some basic principles regarding riparian versus nonriparian rights that are relevant here: Land which includes or is bounded by a natural watercourse is defined as riparian.

2015“A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law in the interpretation of a rule of evidence.” Id. at __; slip op at 9.

2011Although some federal circuit courts of appeal have criticized the analysis advanced in Mediterranean Enterprises, at least one court has acknowledged “that ‘arising under’ may denote a dispute somehow limited to the interpretation and performance of the contract itself.” Sweet Dreams Unlimited, Inc v Dial-A-Mattress Int'l, Ltd, 1 F3d 639 , 642 (CA 7, 1993).

2003While the prosecutor's arguments are immediately drawn to the concerns of solving the instant homicide, we must conclude that they are unpersuasive. *74 "The creation of the ... privilege[ ]... establishes the Legislature's assumption that any forced disclosure of the information protected will cause injury to the privilege holder." People v. Stanaway, 446 Mich. 643, 678 , 521 N.W.2d 557 (1994).

2003While the prosecutor's arguments are immediately drawn to the concerns of solving the instant homicide, we must conclude that they are unpersuasive. *74 "The creation of the ... privilege[ ]... establishes the Legislature's assumption that any forced disclosure of the information protected will cause injury to the privilege holder." People v. Stanaway, 446 Mich. 643, 678 , 521 N.W.2d 557 (1994).