prosecutor violated rule in Michigan

1992Defendant asserts that the above-noted questions and comments of the prosecutor violated the rule announced in People v Bobo, 390 Mich 355, 359 ; 212 NW2d 190 (1973).

1992Defendant asserts that the above-noted questions and comments of the prosecutor violated the rule announced in People v Bobo, 390 Mich 355, 359 ; 212 NW2d 190 (1973).

2016Defendant next argues that the prosecutor violated the rule of Hurd v People, 25 Mich 405 (1872), superseded by statute as recognized in People v Koonce, 466 Mich 515, 518-521 ; 648 NW2d 153 (2002), by failing to have the items of clothing other than the hat and neck scarf tested for DNA.

2016Hurd held that “the prosecution can never, in a criminal case, properly claim a conviction upon evidence which, expressly or by implication, shows but a part of the res gestae, or whole transaction, if it appear[s] that the evidence of the rest of the transaction is attainable.” Hurd, 25 Mich at 415 .

2016Defendant next argues that the prosecutor violated the rule of Hurd v People, 25 Mich 405 (1872), superseded by statute as recognized in People v Koonce, 466 Mich 515, 518-521 ; 648 NW2d 153 (2002), by failing to have the items of clothing other than the hat and neck scarf tested for DNA.

2016Defendant next argues that the prosecutor violated the rule of Hurd v People, 25 Mich 405 (1872), superseded by statute as recognized in People v Koonce, 466 Mich 515, 518-521 ; 648 NW2d 153 (2002), by failing to have the items of clothing other than the hat and neck scarf tested for DNA.

1999Because the predicates of defendant’s constitutional claims were not fulfilled during the relevant period, we need not address these claims here. m After concluding correctly that the defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated by the prosecutor’s reference to defendant’s silence, the Court of Appeals held that the prosecutor violated the rule of People v Bigge, supra. Bigge concerns adoptive or tacit admissions and precludes admissibility of a defendant’s failure to say anything in the face of an accusation as an adoptive or tacit admission under MRE 801(d)(2)(B) unless the defendant

1999Because the predicates of defendant’s constitutional claims were not fulfilled during the relevant period, we need not address these claims here. m After concluding correctly that the defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated by the prosecutor’s reference to defendant’s silence, the Court of Appeals held that the prosecutor violated the rule of People v Bigge, supra. Bigge concerns adoptive or tacit admissions and precludes admissibility of a defendant’s failure to say anything in the face of an accusation as an adoptive or tacit admission under MRE 801(d)(2)(B) unless the defendant

1999Because the predicates of defendant’s constitutional claims were not fulfilled during the relevant period, we need not address these claims here. m After concluding correctly that the defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated by the prosecutor’s reference to defendant’s silence, the Court of Appeals held that the prosecutor violated the rule of People v Bigge, supra. Bigge concerns adoptive or tacit admissions and precludes admissibility of a defendant’s failure to say anything in the face of an accusation as an adoptive or tacit admission under MRE 801(d)(2)(B) unless the defendant

1980On a motion granted by this Court, defendant Theodore Heiler filed a supplemental brief claiming that the prosecutor violated the rule set forth in People v Fountain, 407 Mich 96 ; 282 NW2d 168 (1979), by filing a supplemental information charging defendant as an habitual offender after conviction on the latest charges.

1980On a motion granted by this Court, defendant Theodore Heiler filed a supplemental brief claiming that the prosecutor violated the rule set forth in People v Fountain, 407 Mich 96 ; 282 NW2d 168 (1979), by filing a supplemental information charging defendant as an habitual offender after conviction on the latest charges.

1975Defendant claims that "in several places” the prosecutor violated the rule of People v Falkner, 389 Mich 682 ; 209 NW2d 193 (1973), which held that no witness may be impeached by inquiry into prior arrests or charges not resulting in a conviction or into charges then pending.

1975Defendant claims that "in several places” the prosecutor violated the rule of People v Falkner, 389 Mich 682 ; 209 NW2d 193 (1973), which held that no witness may be impeached by inquiry into prior arrests or charges not resulting in a conviction or into charges then pending.

1972People v Dunn, supra. It is pertinent that if the trial in Secorski had not predated the case of People v Cole, supra, this latter case would have been controlling there.

1972People v Dunn, supra. It is pertinent that if the trial in Secorski had not predated the case of People v Cole, supra, this latter case would have been controlling there.