8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2022 1 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. Shepherdgreen2 sentences2022See People v Shepherd, 472 Mich 343, 348 ; 697 NW2d 144 (2005) (applying the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard to a Confrontation Clause error). 2022See People v Shepherd, 472 Mich 343, 348 ; 697 NW2d 144 (2005) (applying the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard to a Confrontation Clause error). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2018Defendant posits that the court’s ruling implicates his right to present a defense and was an error so severe that it implicates due process rights, triggering the harmless-beyond-a- reasonable-doubt standard of review set forth in Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 24 ; 87 S Ct 824 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705 (1967). 2018Defendant posits that the court’s ruling implicates his right to present a defense and was an error so severe that it implicates due process rights, triggering the harmless-beyond-a- reasonable-doubt standard of review set forth in Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 24 ; 87 S Ct 824 ; 17 L Ed 2d 705 (1967). | 3 | 1996–2018 |
People v. Mateo
green
2 sentences1998For example, in People v. Mateo, supra at 221 , 551 N.W.2d 891 , the Court disposed of the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for nonconstitutional errors. 1996As I articulated in People v. Mateo, 453 Mich. 203 , 551 N.W.2d 891 (1996), I believe the standard for preserved nonconstitutional error should be judged under the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. | 2 | 1996–1998 |
People v. Rockwell
green
2 sentences2022The majority relies on the corpus delicti rule to conclude that the prosecution fails to demonstrate that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. “[T]he corpus delicti of a crime must be established by evidence independent of an accused’s confession[,]” but “[t]his rule is limited . . . to admissions which are confessions, and not to admissions of fact which do not amount to confessions of guilt.” People v Rockwell, 188 Mich App 405, 407 ; 470 NW2d 673 (1991). 2022The majority relies on the corpus delicti rule to conclude that the prosecution fails to demonstrate that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. “[T]he corpus delicti of a crime must be established by evidence independent of an accused’s confession[,]” but “[t]his rule is limited . . . to admissions which are confessions, and not to admissions of fact which do not amount to confessions of guilt.” People v Rockwell, 188 Mich App 405, 407 ; 470 NW2d 673 (1991). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2000People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551 ; 194 NW2d 709 (1972). 2000People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551 ; 194 NW2d 709 (1972). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.