Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Jamesgreen2 sentences1973United States v Beno (CA 2,1963), 324 F2d 582.” Subsequently, in People v James, 36 Mich App 550, 559-560 ; 194 NW2d 57, 62 (1971), we extended the Brocato holding to the impeachment of a defense witness, noting: "The reasoning of our Court in Brocato applies with equal force in the case of a witness who is not a defendant; a distinction in this regard between the defendant and one of his witnesses cannot reasonably be drawn. 1973United States v Beno (CA 2,1963), 324 F2d 582.” Subsequently, in People v James, 36 Mich App 550, 559-560 ; 194 NW2d 57, 62 (1971), we extended the Brocato holding to the impeachment of a defense witness, noting: "The reasoning of our Court in Brocato applies with equal force in the case of a witness who is not a defendant; a distinction in this regard between the defendant and one of his witnesses cannot reasonably be drawn. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Manning
green
2 sentences2023As indicated above, this practice is allowed under Manning, 434 Mich at 18-19 . 2023As indicated above, this practice is allowed under Manning, 434 Mich at 18-19 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Borgne
green
2 sentences2016Borgne, 483 Mich at 192 . 2015The analysis in Borgne, 483 Mich at 193 - 196, applies in this case because, although the prosecutor asked defendant an improper question about his post-arrest, post-Miranda silence, defendant did not then “open the door to the impeachment exception with his fleeting reference to his failed attempt to tell his story.” (Emphasis added.) To the extent that the prosecutor plainly erred in questioning defendant concerning his post-arrest, post-Miranda silence, defendant has not satisfied his burden of establishing that the -5- error prejudiced his substantial rights. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
People v. Allen
green
1 sentence2016Allen, 201 Mich App at 103-104 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Doyle v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2009In fact, the impeachment exception expressly applies when a defendant “testifies to an exculpatory version of events and claims to have told the police the same version upon arrest.” Doyle, 426 US at 619 n 11. 2009In that situation the fact of earlier silence would not be used to impeach the exculpatory story, but rather to challenge the defendant’s testimony as to his behavior following arrest. [ 426 US at 619 n 11.1 This exception can aptly be described as the impeachment exception. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Berthiaume
green
1 sentence1986Cody v Marcel Electric Co, 71 Mich App 714, 722-723 ; 248 NW2d 663 (1976), lv den 399 Mich 851 (1977) (statement by expert that no guard could be installed was properly impeached by evidence that nonparty had installed guard), Narring v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 59 Mich App 717, 727 ; 229 NW2d 901 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 788 (1975) (testimony regarding subsequent changes was proper impeachment of testimony that no changes were made), Little v Borman Food Stores, Inc, 33 Mich App 609, 613-614 ; 190 NW2d 269 (1971) (evidence that rock salt was spread two hours after slip and fall was admissible to im | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Narring v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
green
2 sentences1986Cody v Marcel Electric Co, 71 Mich App 714, 722-723 ; 248 NW2d 663 (1976), lv den 399 Mich 851 (1977) (statement by expert that no guard could be installed was properly impeached by evidence that nonparty had installed guard), Narring v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 59 Mich App 717, 727 ; 229 NW2d 901 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 788 (1975) (testimony regarding subsequent changes was proper impeachment of testimony that no changes were made), Little v Borman Food Stores, Inc, 33 Mich App 609, 613-614 ; 190 NW2d 269 (1971) (evidence that rock salt was spread two hours after slip and fall was admissible to im 1986Cody v Marcel Electric Co, 71 Mich App 714, 722-723 ; 248 NW2d 663 (1976), lv den 399 Mich 851 (1977) (statement by expert that no guard could be installed was properly impeached by evidence that nonparty had installed guard), Narring v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 59 Mich App 717, 727 ; 229 NW2d 901 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 788 (1975) (testimony regarding subsequent changes was proper impeachment of testimony that no changes were made), Little v Borman Food Stores, Inc, 33 Mich App 609, 613-614 ; 190 NW2d 269 (1971) (evidence that rock salt was spread two hours after slip and fall was admissible to im | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Little v. Borman Food Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences1986Cody v Marcel Electric Co, 71 Mich App 714, 722-723 ; 248 NW2d 663 (1976), lv den 399 Mich 851 (1977) (statement by expert that no guard could be installed was properly impeached by evidence that nonparty had installed guard), Narring v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 59 Mich App 717, 727 ; 229 NW2d 901 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 788 (1975) (testimony regarding subsequent changes was proper impeachment of testimony that no changes were made), Little v Borman Food Stores, Inc, 33 Mich App 609, 613-614 ; 190 NW2d 269 (1971) (evidence that rock salt was spread two hours after slip and fall was admissible to im 1986Cody v Marcel Electric Co, 71 Mich App 714, 722-723 ; 248 NW2d 663 (1976), lv den 399 Mich 851 (1977) (statement by expert that no guard could be installed was properly impeached by evidence that nonparty had installed guard), Narring v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 59 Mich App 717, 727 ; 229 NW2d 901 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 788 (1975) (testimony regarding subsequent changes was proper impeachment of testimony that no changes were made), Little v Borman Food Stores, Inc, 33 Mich App 609, 613-614 ; 190 NW2d 269 (1971) (evidence that rock salt was spread two hours after slip and fall was admissible to im | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Cody v. Marcel Electric Co.
green
2 sentences1986Cody v Marcel Electric Co, 71 Mich App 714, 722-723 ; 248 NW2d 663 (1976), lv den 399 Mich 851 (1977) (statement by expert that no guard could be installed was properly impeached by evidence that nonparty had installed guard), Narring v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 59 Mich App 717, 727 ; 229 NW2d 901 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 788 (1975) (testimony regarding subsequent changes was proper impeachment of testimony that no changes were made), Little v Borman Food Stores, Inc, 33 Mich App 609, 613-614 ; 190 NW2d 269 (1971) (evidence that rock salt was spread two hours after slip and fall was admissible to im 1986Cody v Marcel Electric Co, 71 Mich App 714, 722-723 ; 248 NW2d 663 (1976), lv den 399 Mich 851 (1977) (statement by expert that no guard could be installed was properly impeached by evidence that nonparty had installed guard), Narring v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 59 Mich App 717, 727 ; 229 NW2d 901 (1975), lv den 394 Mich 788 (1975) (testimony regarding subsequent changes was proper impeachment of testimony that no changes were made), Little v Borman Food Stores, Inc, 33 Mich App 609, 613-614 ; 190 NW2d 269 (1971) (evidence that rock salt was spread two hours after slip and fall was admissible to im | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Falkner
green
2 sentences1983People v Falkner, 389 Mich 682 ; 209 NW2d 193 (1973). 1983People v Falkner, 389 Mich 682 ; 209 NW2d 193 (1973). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Graham
green
2 sentences1973This situation is clearly distinguishable from the impeachment exception to Jablonski , as stated in People v Graham, 386 Mich 452 (1971), and People v Bobo, 41 Mich App 362 (1972). 1973This situation is clearly distinguishable from the impeachment exception to Jablonski , as stated in People v Graham, 386 Mich 452 (1971), and People v Bobo, 41 Mich App 362 (1972). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
People v. Bobo
green
2 sentences1973This situation is clearly distinguishable from the impeachment exception to Jablonski , as stated in People v Graham, 386 Mich 452 (1971), and People v Bobo, 41 Mich App 362 (1972). 1973This situation is clearly distinguishable from the impeachment exception to Jablonski , as stated in People v Graham, 386 Mich 452 (1971), and People v Bobo, 41 Mich App 362 (1972). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
People v. Sesson
green
2 sentences1973Since the trier of fact is more likely to credit the testimony of disinterested third persons than the testimony of a keenly interested defendant, the defendant in many cases will be more dependent on the evidence offered by others than on his own testimony.” See also Cachola v The Kroger Co, 32 Mich App 557 ; 189 NW2d 112 (1971), leave to appeal denied, 385 Mich 775 , and compare People v Sesson, 45 Mich App 288 ; 206 NW2d 495 (1973). 1973Since the trier of fact is more likely to credit the testimony of disinterested third persons than the testimony of a keenly interested defendant, the defendant in many cases will be more dependent on the evidence offered by others than on his own testimony.” See also Cachola v The Kroger Co, 32 Mich App 557 ; 189 NW2d 112 (1971), leave to appeal denied, 385 Mich 775 , and compare People v Sesson, 45 Mich App 288 ; 206 NW2d 495 (1973). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Cachola v. the Kroger Company
green
2 sentences1973Since the trier of fact is more likely to credit the testimony of disinterested third persons than the testimony of a keenly interested defendant, the defendant in many cases will be more dependent on the evidence offered by others than on his own testimony.” See also Cachola v The Kroger Co, 32 Mich App 557 ; 189 NW2d 112 (1971), leave to appeal denied, 385 Mich 775 , and compare People v Sesson, 45 Mich App 288 ; 206 NW2d 495 (1973). 1973Since the trier of fact is more likely to credit the testimony of disinterested third persons than the testimony of a keenly interested defendant, the defendant in many cases will be more dependent on the evidence offered by others than on his own testimony.” See also Cachola v The Kroger Co, 32 Mich App 557 ; 189 NW2d 112 (1971), leave to appeal denied, 385 Mich 775 , and compare People v Sesson, 45 Mich App 288 ; 206 NW2d 495 (1973). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.