8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 3 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. Fishergreen2 sentences2026In Fisher, 442 Mich at 563, 576 , the Court held, in the context of a criminal appeal, that the marital- communications privilege, MCL 600.2162(4), did not apply to statements the defendant’s estranged wife made to a police detective that were later set forth in a search-warrant affidavit and outlined in the presentence investigation report, because the spouse was never examined as a witness. 2022The prosecutor countered the marital communications privilege applied only to testimonial evidence, relying on People v Fisher, 442 Mich 560, 575 ; 503 NW2d 50 (1993). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Hamachergreen2 sentences2003See People v Hamacher, 432 Mich 157, 161-162 ; 438 NW2d 43 (1989). 2 In June 2001, Smith was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit murder, accessory after the fact, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. 3 The prosecutor concluded that a prosecution of defendant without Hostetter’s testimony about marital communications between Hostetter and defendant would not be feasible. 4 We note that the admission or exclusion of evidence by a trial court is generally reviewed by this Court for an abuse of discretion. 2003See People v Hamacher, 432 Mich 157, 161-162 ; 438 NW2d 43 (1989). 2 In June 2001, Smith was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit murder, accessory after the fact, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. 3 The prosecutor concluded that a prosecution of defendant without Hostetter’s testimony about marital communications between Hostetter and defendant would not be feasible. 4 We note that the admission or exclusion of evidence by a trial court is generally reviewed by this Court for an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Wadkinsgreen2 sentences1986Wadkins , p 330. 1986Wadkins , p 330. | 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. Gardner
green
2 sentences2022People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436, 443 ; 719 NW2d 579 (2006). “[W]hen statutory language is unambiguous, judicial construction is not required or permitted.” People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 50 ; 753 NW2d 78 (2008). 2 Although MCL 600.2162(3) recognizes exceptions to the marital communications privilege, the exceptions do not apply in this case. -2- In Fisher, 442 Mich at 575 , our Supreme Court made it clear that the marital communications privilege applies only when a spouse testifies. 2022People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436, 443 ; 719 NW2d 579 (2006). “[W]hen statutory language is unambiguous, judicial construction is not required or permitted.” People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 50 ; 753 NW2d 78 (2008). 2 Although MCL 600.2162(3) recognizes exceptions to the marital communications privilege, the exceptions do not apply in this case. -2- In Fisher, 442 Mich at 575 , our Supreme Court made it clear that the marital communications privilege applies only when a spouse testifies. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Anstey
green
2 sentences2022People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436, 443 ; 719 NW2d 579 (2006). “[W]hen statutory language is unambiguous, judicial construction is not required or permitted.” People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 50 ; 753 NW2d 78 (2008). 2 Although MCL 600.2162(3) recognizes exceptions to the marital communications privilege, the exceptions do not apply in this case. -2- In Fisher, 442 Mich at 575 , our Supreme Court made it clear that the marital communications privilege applies only when a spouse testifies. 2022People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436, 443 ; 719 NW2d 579 (2006). “[W]hen statutory language is unambiguous, judicial construction is not required or permitted.” People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 50 ; 753 NW2d 78 (2008). 2 Although MCL 600.2162(3) recognizes exceptions to the marital communications privilege, the exceptions do not apply in this case. -2- In Fisher, 442 Mich at 575 , our Supreme Court made it clear that the marital communications privilege applies only when a spouse testifies. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Clevenger
green
1 sentence2003See, generally, Washington v Clevenger, 69 Wash 2d 136, 143; 417 P2d 626 (1966). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Byrd
green
2 sentences1998People v Byrd, 207 Mich App 599, 602 ; 525 NW2d 507 (1994). 1998People v Byrd, 207 Mich App 599, 602 ; 525 NW2d 507 (1994). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Tanner
green
2 sentences1993See the last clause of MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162. 2 Defendant removed his tools, two guns, two radios, a camera, a picture, part of his wife’s phone bill, and the keys to his motorcycle. 3 We need not discuss the first question in the Harris test — “If the sentence is to be within the guidelines, where in the guidelines range should the sentence fall?” — because the trial court had already chosen to depart from the guidelines. 4 During sentencing, defendant’s wife alleged other instances of drunken violence, but the trial court chose not to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve defendant’s o 1993See the last clause of MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162. 2 Defendant removed his tools, two guns, two radios, a camera, a picture, part of his wife’s phone bill, and the keys to his motorcycle. 3 We need not discuss the first question in the Harris test — “If the sentence is to be within the guidelines, where in the guidelines range should the sentence fall?” — because the trial court had already chosen to depart from the guidelines. 4 During sentencing, defendant’s wife alleged other instances of drunken violence, but the trial court chose not to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve defendant’s o | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Rosa
green
2 sentences1993People v Rosa, 268 Mich 462, 464 ; 256 NW 483 (1934). [11] The spouse would not need to testify at sentencing because the majority allows the police to take her testimony out of court and use it at sentencing. [12] For example, under the spousal privilege an ex-spouse can testify without defendant's consent and a spouse can testify with defendant's consent. 1993People v Rosa, 268 Mich 462, 464 ; 256 NW 483 (1934). [11] The spouse would not need to testify at sentencing because the majority allows the police to take her testimony out of court and use it at sentencing. [12] For example, under the spousal privilege an ex-spouse can testify without defendant's consent and a spouse can testify with defendant's consent. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Dubanowski
green
2 sentences1993People v Dubanowski, 75 Ill App 3d 809; 31 Ill Dec 403; 394 NE2d 605 (1979). 1993People v Dubanowski, 75 Ill App 3d 809; 31 Ill Dec 403; 394 NE2d 605 (1979). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.