Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2019 0 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. Stanawaygreen2 sentences2019Because “[t]he goal of a defense objection to improper remarks by the prosecutor is a curative instruction,” appellate review of such remarks is generally precluded where the defendant failed to request a curative instruction “unless the prejudicial effect of the remark[s] was so great that it could not have been cured by an appropriate instruction.” People v Cross, 202 Mich App 138, 143 ; 508 NW2d 144 (1993) (citations omitted); see also People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643, 687 ; 521 NW2d 557 (1994) (noting that a defendant’s failure to timely object to improper remarks by the prosecution deprive 2019Because “[t]he goal of a defense objection to improper remarks by the prosecutor is a curative instruction,” appellate review of such remarks is generally precluded where the defendant failed to request a curative instruction “unless the prejudicial effect of the remark[s] was so great that it could not have been cured by an appropriate instruction.” People v Cross, 202 Mich App 138, 143 ; 508 NW2d 144 (1993) (citations omitted); see also People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643, 687 ; 521 NW2d 557 (1994) (noting that a defendant’s failure to timely object to improper remarks by the prosecution deprive | 3 | 3 |
People v. Crossgreen2 sentences2019Because “[t]he goal of a defense objection to improper remarks by the prosecutor is a curative instruction,” appellate review of such remarks is generally precluded where the defendant failed to request a curative instruction “unless the prejudicial effect of the remark[s] was so great that it could not have been cured by an appropriate instruction.” People v Cross, 202 Mich App 138, 143 ; 508 NW2d 144 (1993) (citations omitted); see also People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643, 687 ; 521 NW2d 557 (1994) (noting that a defendant’s failure to timely object to improper remarks by the prosecution deprive 2019Because “[t]he goal of a defense objection to improper remarks by the prosecutor is a curative instruction,” appellate review of such remarks is generally precluded where the defendant failed to request a curative instruction “unless the prejudicial effect of the remark[s] was so great that it could not have been cured by an appropriate instruction.” People v Cross, 202 Mich App 138, 143 ; 508 NW2d 144 (1993) (citations omitted); see also People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643, 687 ; 521 NW2d 557 (1994) (noting that a defendant’s failure to timely object to improper remarks by the prosecution deprive | 2 | 6 |
People v. Callongreen2 sentences2015Although a prosecutor may not argue a fact to the jury that is not supported by evidence, a prosecutor is free to argue the evidence and any reasonable inferences that may arise from the evidence. [People v Callon, 256 Mich App 312, 330 ; 662 NW2d 501 (2003) (citations omitted).] Because “[t]he goal of a defense objection to improper remarks by the prosecutor is a curative instruction[,]” appellate review of such remarks is generally precluded where the defendant failed to request a curative instruction “unless the prejudicial effect of the remark was so great that it could not have been cured 2015Although a prosecutor may not argue a fact to the jury that is not supported by evidence, a prosecutor is free to argue the evidence and any reasonable inferences that may arise from the evidence. [People v Callon, 256 Mich App 312, 330 ; 662 NW2d 501 (2003) (citations omitted).] Because “[t]he goal of a defense objection to improper remarks by the prosecutor is a curative instruction[,]” appellate review of such remarks is generally precluded where the defendant failed to request a curative instruction “unless the prejudicial effect of the remark was so great that it could not have been cured | 2 | 4 |
People v. Watsongreen2 sentences2017See Watson, 245 Mich App at 591-592 (concluding that reversal was not required where “the prosecutor’s comment was isolated, . . . did not blatantly appeal to the jury’s sympathy, . . . was not so inflammatory as to prejudice defendant,” and the trial court provided an appropriate curative instruction). 2017See Watson, 245 Mich App at 591-592 (concluding that reversal was not required where “the prosecutor’s comment was isolated, . . . did not blatantly appeal to the jury’s sympathy, . . . was not so inflammatory as to prejudice defendant,” and the trial court provided an appropriate curative instruction). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Ungergreen2 sentences2017“Curative instructions are sufficient to cure the prejudicial effect of most inappropriate prosecutorial statements, and jurors are presumed to follow their instructions.” Unger, 278 Mich App at 235 (citations omitted); see also People v Cross, 202 Mich App 138, 143 ; 508 NW2d 144 (1993) (“The goal of a defense objection to improper remarks by the prosecutor is a curative instruction.”); People v Abraham, 256 Mich App 265, 279 ; 662 NW2d 836 (2003) (“Jurors are presumed to follow their instructions, and instructions are presumed to cure most errors.”). -14- Reversal is not required on this gro 2017“Curative instructions are sufficient to cure the prejudicial effect of most inappropriate prosecutorial statements, and jurors are presumed to follow their instructions.” Unger, 278 Mich App at 235 (citations omitted); see also People v Cross, 202 Mich App 138, 143 ; 508 NW2d 144 (1993) (“The goal of a defense objection to improper remarks by the prosecutor is a curative instruction.”); People v Abraham, 256 Mich App 265, 279 ; 662 NW2d 836 (2003) (“Jurors are presumed to follow their instructions, and instructions are presumed to cure most errors.”). -14- Reversal is not required on this gro | 2 | 2 |
People v. Abrahamgreen2 sentences2017“Curative instructions are sufficient to cure the prejudicial effect of most inappropriate prosecutorial statements, and jurors are presumed to follow their instructions.” Unger, 278 Mich App at 235 (citations omitted); see also People v Cross, 202 Mich App 138, 143 ; 508 NW2d 144 (1993) (“The goal of a defense objection to improper remarks by the prosecutor is a curative instruction.”); People v Abraham, 256 Mich App 265, 279 ; 662 NW2d 836 (2003) (“Jurors are presumed to follow their instructions, and instructions are presumed to cure most errors.”). -14- Reversal is not required on this gro 2017“Curative instructions are sufficient to cure the prejudicial effect of most inappropriate prosecutorial statements, and jurors are presumed to follow their instructions.” Unger, 278 Mich App at 235 (citations omitted); see also People v Cross, 202 Mich App 138, 143 ; 508 NW2d 144 (1993) (“The goal of a defense objection to improper remarks by the prosecutor is a curative instruction.”); People v Abraham, 256 Mich App 265, 279 ; 662 NW2d 836 (2003) (“Jurors are presumed to follow their instructions, and instructions are presumed to cure most errors.”). -14- Reversal is not required on this gro | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Bennett
green
2 sentences2015Likewise, reversal is unwarranted where a “curative instruction could have alleviated any prejudicial effect.” People v Callon, 256 Mich App 312, 329-330 ; 662 NW2d 501 (2003) (citations omitted). “[A]llegations of prosecutorial misconduct are considered on a case-by-case basis, and the reviewing court must consider the prosecutor’s remarks in context.” People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465, 475 ; 802 NW2d 627 (2010). 2015Likewise, reversal is unwarranted where a “curative instruction could have alleviated any prejudicial effect.” People v Callon, 256 Mich App 312, 329-330 ; 662 NW2d 501 (2003) (citations omitted). “[A]llegations of prosecutorial misconduct are considered on a case-by-case basis, and the reviewing court must consider the prosecutor’s remarks in context.” People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465, 475 ; 802 NW2d 627 (2010). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Clifton Fuqua
green
2 sentences1993People v Fuqua, 146 Mich App 250, 254 ; 379 NW2d 442 (1985). 1993People v Fuqua, 146 Mich App 250, 254 ; 379 NW2d 442 (1985). | 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.