65 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2026 14 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. Lanegreen2 sentences2026According to defendant, a mistrial was warranted because the statement “was clearly a damaging” one, as it “practically amounted to a confession of doing something wrong.” But a “trial court should only grant a mistrial for an irregularity that is prejudicial to the rights of the defendant and impairs his ability to receive a fair trial and when the prejudicial effect of the error cannot be removed in any other way.” People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38, 60 ; 862 NW2d 446 (2014) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 2026According to defendant, a mistrial was warranted because the statement “was clearly a damaging” one, as it “practically amounted to a confession of doing something wrong.” But a “trial court should only grant a mistrial for an irregularity that is prejudicial to the rights of the defendant and impairs his ability to receive a fair trial and when the prejudicial effect of the error cannot be removed in any other way.” People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38, 60 ; 862 NW2d 446 (2014) (quotation marks and citations omitted). | 8 | 25 |
People v. Horngreen2 sentences2024“A trial court should only grant a mistrial when the prejudicial effect of the error cannot be removed in any other way.” People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 36 ; -3- 755 NW2d 212 (2008). 2024“A trial court should only grant a mistrial when the prejudicial effect of the error cannot be removed in any other way.” People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 36 ; -3- 755 NW2d 212 (2008). | 3 | 36 |
People v. Kellygreen2 sentences2017See People v Kelly, 231 Mich App 627, 640-641 ; 588 NW2d 480 (1998). -6- cannot be removed in any other way. 2017See People v Kelly, 231 Mich App 627, 640-641 ; 588 NW2d 480 (1998). -6- cannot be removed in any other way. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Abrahamgreen2 sentences2017See People v Abraham, 256 Mich App 265, 279 ; 662 NW2d 836 (2003). 2017See People v Abraham, 256 Mich App 265, 279 ; 662 NW2d 836 (2003). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Carinesgreen1 sentence2026See id.; see also Carines, 460 Mich at 763 (providing that the burden is on a defendant to demonstrate that a plain error affected his or her substantial rights). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lukitygreen2 sentences2020Even if this Court concludes that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial, “[e]rror requiring reversal results only where a trial judge’s denial of a defendant’s motion for mistrial is so grossly in error as to deprive a defendant of a fair trial or to amount to a miscarriage of justice.” People v Holly, 129 Mich App 405, 415 ; 341 NW2d 823 (1983); see also People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 495 ; 596 NW2d 607 (1999) (a preserved, nonconstitutional error requires reversal only if “it shall affirmatively appear that the error asserted has resulted in a miscarriage of 2020Even if this Court concludes that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial, “[e]rror requiring reversal results only where a trial judge’s denial of a defendant’s motion for mistrial is so grossly in error as to deprive a defendant of a fair trial or to amount to a miscarriage of justice.” People v Holly, 129 Mich App 405, 415 ; 341 NW2d 823 (1983); see also People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 495 ; 596 NW2d 607 (1999) (a preserved, nonconstitutional error requires reversal only if “it shall affirmatively appear that the error asserted has resulted in a miscarriage of | 1 | 1 |
People v. Waclawskigreen1 sentence2016See Waclawski, 286 Mich App at 708 . | 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. Haywood
green
2 sentences2016The trial court should only grant a mistrial for “an irregularity that is prejudicial to the rights of the defendant and impairs his ability to get a fair trial,” Id., quoting People v Haywood, 209 Mich App 217, 228 ; 530 NW2d 497 (1995), and when “the prejudicial effect of the error cannot be removed in any other way.” People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 36 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008). 2016The trial court should only grant a mistrial for “an irregularity that is prejudicial to the rights of the defendant and impairs his ability to get a fair trial,” Id., quoting People v Haywood, 209 Mich App 217, 228 ; 530 NW2d 497 (1995), and when “the prejudicial effect of the error cannot be removed in any other way.” People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 36 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008). | 4 | 2016–2020 |
People v. Schaw
green
2 sentences2017Schaw, 288 Mich App at 236 ; People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 36 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008). 2016The trial court should only grant a mistrial for “an irregularity that is prejudicial to the rights of the defendant and impairs his ability to get a fair trial,” Id., quoting People v Haywood, 209 Mich App 217, 228 ; 530 NW2d 497 (1995), and when “the prejudicial effect of the error cannot be removed in any other way.” People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 36 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008). | 4 | 2015–2017 |
People v. Holly
green
2 sentences2023People v Holly, 129 Mich App 405, 415 ; 341 NW2d 823 (1983). 2023People v Holly, 129 Mich App 405, 415 ; 341 NW2d 823 (1983). | 2 | 2020–2023 |
People v. Nash
green
2 sentences2015“Although reference to a polygraph test is inadmissible, . . . it does not always constitute error requiring reversal.” People v Nash, 244 Mich App 93, 98 ; 625 NW2d 87 (2000). 2015“Although reference to a polygraph test is inadmissible, . . . it does not always constitute error requiring reversal.” People v Nash, 244 Mich App 93, 98 ; 625 NW2d 87 (2000). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Jackson (On Reconsideration)
green
2 sentences2021Generally, “unresponsive testimony by a prosecution witness does not justify a mistrial unless the prosecutor knew in advance that the witness would give the unresponsive testimony or the prosecutor conspired with or encouraged the witness to give that testimony[.]” People v Jackson (On Reconsideration), 313 Mich App 409, 427 ; 884 NW2d 297 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). -2- The motion for a mistrial was based on three instances where Christopher provided objectionable testimony.2 The first occurred after the prosecutor asked Christopher about what took place at the bar: Q. 2021Generally, “unresponsive testimony by a prosecution witness does not justify a mistrial unless the prosecutor knew in advance that the witness would give the unresponsive testimony or the prosecutor conspired with or encouraged the witness to give that testimony[.]” People v Jackson (On Reconsideration), 313 Mich App 409, 427 ; 884 NW2d 297 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). -2- The motion for a mistrial was based on three instances where Christopher provided objectionable testimony.2 The first occurred after the prosecutor asked Christopher about what took place at the bar: Q. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Petri
green
2 sentences2020“Jurors are presumed to follow instructions, and instructions are presumed to cure most errors.” People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407, 414 ; 760 NW2d 882 (2008). 2020“Jurors are presumed to follow instructions, and instructions are presumed to cure most errors.” People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407, 414 ; 760 NW2d 882 (2008). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Hackney
green
2 sentences2016“A trial court should only grant a mistrial when the prejudicial effect of the error cannot be removed in any other way.” People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 36 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008). “[I]nstructions are presumed to cure most errors.” Id. -11- Generally, “unresponsive testimony by a prosecution witness does not justify a mistrial unless the prosecutor knew in advance that the witness would give the unresponsive testimony or the prosecutor conspired with or encouraged the witness to give that testimony.” People v Hackney, 183 Mich App 516, 531 ; 455 NW2d 358 (1990). 2016“A trial court should only grant a mistrial when the prejudicial effect of the error cannot be removed in any other way.” People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 36 ; 755 NW2d 212 (2008). “[I]nstructions are presumed to cure most errors.” Id. -11- Generally, “unresponsive testimony by a prosecution witness does not justify a mistrial unless the prosecutor knew in advance that the witness would give the unresponsive testimony or the prosecutor conspired with or encouraged the witness to give that testimony.” People v Hackney, 183 Mich App 516, 531 ; 455 NW2d 358 (1990). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2012We will not reverse where the jury “instructions fairly presented the issues to be tried and sufficiently protected the defendant’s rights.” People v Gonzalez, 256 Mich App 212, 225 ; 663 NW2d 499 (2003). 2012We will not reverse where the jury “instructions fairly presented the issues to be tried and sufficiently protected the defendant’s rights.” People v Gonzalez, 256 Mich App 212, 225 ; 663 NW2d 499 (2003). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Lumsden
green
2 sentences2008People v Lumsden, 168 Mich App 286, 299 ; 423 NW2d 645 (1988). 2008People v Lumsden, 168 Mich App 286, 299 ; 423 NW2d 645 (1988). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.