proposed jury instruction (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

proposed jury instruction in Michigan

8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2024 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Lafler v. Coopergreen
scotus · 2012 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See Lafler, 566 US at 170 - 172. -10- Reurink also argues that his trial counsel should have objected to the proposed jury instruction before trial began so Reurink could decide how to proceed with his case, particularly given that the added “downloading” language seemingly left him with no defense.

11
People v. Lemonsgreen
mich · 1997 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021See People v Lemons, 454 Mich 234, 245-248 (1997).

11
Goodwin v. S. A. Healy Co.green
mich · 1970 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974
2 sentences

1974In Goodwin v S A Healy Co, 383 Mich 300, 305 ; 174 NW2d 755, 757 (1970), counsel objected to a proposed jury instruction.

1974In Goodwin v S A Healy Co, 383 Mich 300, 305 ; 174 NW2d 755, 757 (1970), counsel objected to a proposed jury instruction.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Kowalski green
mich · 2011
2 sentences

2015People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 503 ; 803 NW2d 200 (2011).

2013More recently, our Supreme Court in Kowalski, 489 Mich at 503 , held that “[w]hen defense counsel clearly expresses satisfaction with a trial court’s decision, counsel’s action will be deemed to constitute a waiver.” In Kowalski , the trial court asked defense counsel multiple times whether he had any objections to the proposed jury instruction regarding accosting a minor, to which defense counsel responded each time that he did not.

22013–2015
People v. Ericksen green
michctapp · 2010
2 sentences

2020People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010), lv den 488 Mich 1045 (2011).

2020People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201 ; 793 NW2d 120 (2010), lv den 488 Mich 1045 (2011).

12020–2020
People v. Bartlett green
michctapp · 1998
2 sentences

2018Although “juror” is undefined, the statutes clearly apply to those persons summoned for jury duty, but not necessarily selected and sworn. 5 “This Court reviews jury instructions as a whole to determine whether there is error requiring reversal.” People v Bartlett, 231 Mich App 139, 143 ; 585 NW2d 341 (1998). -6- instruction for the first element of the crime: “That [name juror involved] was a juror in the case of [name case in which juror sat].” In so doing, he asserts that “[e]ven the proposed jury instruction acknowledged that the juror must have ‘sat’ in the case.” But this is simply a dif

2018Although “juror” is undefined, the statutes clearly apply to those persons summoned for jury duty, but not necessarily selected and sworn. 5 “This Court reviews jury instructions as a whole to determine whether there is error requiring reversal.” People v Bartlett, 231 Mich App 139, 143 ; 585 NW2d 341 (1998). -6- instruction for the first element of the crime: “That [name juror involved] was a juror in the case of [name case in which juror sat].” In so doing, he asserts that “[e]ven the proposed jury instruction acknowledged that the juror must have ‘sat’ in the case.” But this is simply a dif

12018–2018
People v. Carter green
mich · 2000
2 sentences

2014Defendant thereafter stipulated to the admission of the phone calls, and the court read the aforementioned instruction. -1- As the Michigan Supreme Court has held, “[w]aiver has been defined as the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2014Defendant thereafter stipulated to the admission of the phone calls, and the court read the aforementioned instruction. -1- As the Michigan Supreme Court has held, “[w]aiver has been defined as the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

12014–2014

Where else courts name it

OH 115 (1986–2026) WA 76 (1983–2026) MS 58 (1992–2026) FL 52 (1979–2026) TX 51 (1988–2026) VA 47 (1999–2026) IL 40 (1985–2026) UT 34 (1982–2026) IN 32 (2005–2025) CA 31 (1992–2026) NV 30 (1998–2022) MT 27 (1981–2026) SD 24 (1978–2026) OR 24 (1994–2026) MD 19 (1993–2025) AZ 17 (2004–2026) CO 15 (1993–2026) ND 13 (1999–2023) WY 13 (1990–2026) NE 12 (1990–2025) WI 12 (1991–2025) PA 12 (1982–2025) LA 11 (2000–2022) CT 10 (1994–2019) ID 10 (1995–2023) NC 10 (1990–2026) MN 9 (1990–2015) NM 9 (1997–2025) NH 9 (1984–2010) IA 9 (1993–2026) KS 8 (2014–2024) MO 8 (2006–2020) MA 8 (1994–2023) MI 8 (1974–2024) TN 7 (1996–2019) AL 7 (1989–2004) DC 6 (1995–2024) ME 6 (2012–2025) HI 5 (1996–2021) AK 4 (1991–2019) AR 4 (2003–2026) DE 2 (2015–2025) SC 2 (2001–2005) GA 2 (2014–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check