51 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1948–2020 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. Jacksongreen2 sentences2020See People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 268-270 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015) (rejecting a res gestae exception to MRE 404(b) but reasoning that Delgado and Sholl “provide firm support for the notion that evidence meeting their ‘res gestae’ definition is potentially relevant and admissible”). 2020See People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246, 268-270 ; 869 NW2d 253 (2015) (rejecting a res gestae exception to MRE 404(b) but reasoning that Delgado and Sholl “provide firm support for the notion that evidence meeting their ‘res gestae’ definition is potentially relevant and admissible”). | 3 | 7 |
People v. Raidergreen2 sentences1980In People v Raider, the Supreme Court stated the rationale for the exceptions to the res gestae rule: "Obviously the exceptions were founded upon the recognized inclination or inducement of those close to the accused, by community of interest in the crime or relationship, to perjure themselves, if they deem it necessary, in his behalf, and the incongruity of requiring the prosecution to make such witnesses its own.” 256 Mich 131, 135-136 . 1973In People v Raider, 256 Mich 131, 135-136 (1931), the *695 rationale for the exceptions to the res gestae rule was stated as follows: "Obviously the exceptions were founded upon the recognized inclination or inducement of those close to the accused, by community of interest in the crime or relationship, to perjure themselves, if they deem it necessary, in his behalf, and the incongruity of requiring the prosecution to make such witnesses its own.” This exception only applies if the witness was indeed an accomplice of the accused. | 2 | 6 |
Rice v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1976Over objection on the grounds of hearsay, a witness was permitted to testify that the defendant’s sister ran into his neighborhood store to use the telephone and said: "Montgomery is upstairs, hurting and raping some girl.” While this statement was clearly hearsay it comes within the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. 1 People v Frank Johnson, 58 Mich App 1, 6 ; 226 NW2d 730 (1975), Rice v Jackson, 1 Mich App 105, 110-111 ; 134 NW2d 366 ; 13 ALR3d 1104 (1965). 1976Over objection on the grounds of hearsay, a witness was permitted to testify that the defendant’s sister ran into his neighborhood store to use the telephone and said: "Montgomery is upstairs, hurting and raping some girl.” While this statement was clearly hearsay it comes within the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. 1 People v Frank Johnson, 58 Mich App 1, 6 ; 226 NW2d 730 (1975), Rice v Jackson, 1 Mich App 105, 110-111 ; 134 NW2d 366 ; 13 ALR3d 1104 (1965). | 2 | 4 |
People v. Ivory Thomasgreen2 sentences1973As stated in People v Ivory Thomas, 14 Mich App 642, 647 (1968), regarding the res gestae exception: "The question then is, was the response spontaneous and unreflecting, and made before there was time to contrive and misrepresent. 1973As stated in People v Ivory Thomas, 14 Mich App 642, 647 (1968), regarding the res gestae exception: "The question then is, was the response spontaneous and unreflecting, and made before there was time to contrive and misrepresent. | 1 | 4 |
People v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2015ANALYSIS A. DUTTON STREET SHOOTING EVIDENCE Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the Dutton Street shooting under the res gestae exception.8 The trial court ruled that evidence of the Dutton Street shooting was admissible under the “res gestae exception.” “Under that exception, evidence of prior ‘bad acts’ is admissible where those are ‘so blended or connected with the (charged offense) that proof of one involves the other or explains the circumstances of the crime.’ ” People v Robinson, 128 Mich App 338, 340 ; 340 NW2d 303 (1983), quoting People 2015ANALYSIS A. DUTTON STREET SHOOTING EVIDENCE Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the Dutton Street shooting under the res gestae exception.8 The trial court ruled that evidence of the Dutton Street shooting was admissible under the “res gestae exception.” “Under that exception, evidence of prior ‘bad acts’ is admissible where those are ‘so blended or connected with the (charged offense) that proof of one involves the other or explains the circumstances of the crime.’ ” People v Robinson, 128 Mich App 338, 340 ; 340 NW2d 303 (1983), quoting People | 1 | 2 |
People v. Threlkeldgreen2 sentences1980People v Threlkeld, 47 Mich App 691, 696 ; 209 NW2d 852 (1973). 1980People v Threlkeld, 47 Mich App 691, 696 ; 209 NW2d 852 (1973). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Gisondigreen2 sentences1990See People v Gisondi, 9 Mich App 289, 293-294 ; 156 NW2d 601 (1967) ("[U]nder longstanding Michigan precedents, which antedate Escobedo [v Illinois, 378 US 478 ; 84 S Ct 1758 ; 12 L Ed 2d 977 (1964)] and Miranda , the accused’s silence in face of an accusation is not deemed an admission or confession in a criminal case, except when such silence occurs on the part of a suspected participant in a crime as a part of the res gestae”) (citations omitted). 1990See People v Gisondi, 9 Mich App 289, 293-294 ; 156 NW2d 601 (1967) ("[U]nder longstanding Michigan precedents, which antedate Escobedo [v Illinois, 378 US 478 ; 84 S Ct 1758 ; 12 L Ed 2d 977 (1964)] and Miranda , the accused’s silence in face of an accusation is not deemed an admission or confession in a criminal case, except when such silence occurs on the part of a suspected participant in a crime as a part of the res gestae”) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Washingtongreen2 sentences1990See, for example, People v Washington, 100 Mich App 628, 630 ; 300 NW2d 347 (1980), where the Court of Appeals, citing Bigge , said: "The tacit admission rule, which permits a defendant’s silence in the face of an accusation to be used against him, is not utilized in criminal cases in Michigan.” There once was a res gestae exception to the holding in Bigge . 1990See, for example, People v Washington, 100 Mich App 628, 630 ; 300 NW2d 347 (1980), where the Court of Appeals, citing Bigge , said: "The tacit admission rule, which permits a defendant’s silence in the face of an accusation to be used against him, is not utilized in criminal cases in Michigan.” There once was a res gestae exception to the holding in Bigge . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Burtongreen2 sentences1985See People v Burton, 71 Mich App 473 ; 247 NW2d 336 (1976). 1985See People v Burton, 71 Mich App 473 ; 247 NW2d 336 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Broadengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hurd v. Peoplegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Szymanskigreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Quimbygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rogers v. Saginaw-Bay City Railway Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Martin Parry Corp. v. Bernergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stirling v. Buckinghamgreen | 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. Scott
green
2 sentences1984Similarly, in People v Scott, 61 Mich App 91 ; 232 NW2d 315 (1975), evidence that the charged offense of felonious assault occurred during defendant’s attempt to escape prison was found to be admissible under the res gestae exception. 1984Similarly, in People v Scott, 61 Mich App 91 ; 232 NW2d 315 (1975), evidence that the charged offense of felonious assault occurred during defendant’s attempt to escape prison was found to be admissible under the res gestae exception. | 4 | 1981–1984 |
People v. Kayne
green
2 sentences1974This testimony falls within the perimeters of the res gestae rule laid down in People v McPherson, supra. "Res gestae are the circumstances, facts and declarations which grow out of the main fact, are contemporaneous with it, and * * * so illustrate and characterize the principal fact as to * * * render [them] necessary to exhibit [it] in its proper effect.” People v Kayne, 268 Mich 186, 191-192 ; 255 NW 758 (1934) (citations omitted). 1974This testimony falls within the perimeters of the res gestae rule laid down in People v McPherson, supra. "Res gestae are the circumstances, facts and declarations which grow out of the main fact, are contemporaneous with it, and * * * so illustrate and characterize the principal fact as to * * * render [them] necessary to exhibit [it] in its proper effect.” People v Kayne, 268 Mich 186, 191-192 ; 255 NW 758 (1934) (citations omitted). | 4 | 1954–1974 |
People v. Harrison
green
2 sentences1985People v Harrison, supra. Where as here the testimony is essentially the words of the prison guards against the words of the prisoners, credibility is a paramount factor. 1978People v Harrison, supra. 4 Although our decision on the res gestae witness issue in itself requires reversal of the conviction, we note in connection with this discussion that defendant also challenges the substance of the court’s findings of fact at the trial. | 3 | 1976–1985 |
People v. Stoker
neutral
2 sentences1984In People v Stoker, 103 Mich App 800 ; 303 NW2d 900 (1981), the introduction of evidence showing that defendant was in possession of several different identification cards at the time of his arrest for armed robbery and felony-firearm was held to be reversibly erroneous and not within the res gestae exception. 1984In People v Stoker, 103 Mich App 800 ; 303 NW2d 900 (1981), the introduction of evidence showing that defendant was in possession of several different identification cards at the time of his arrest for armed robbery and felony-firearm was held to be reversibly erroneous and not within the res gestae exception. | 3 | 1982–1984 |
People v. Savage
green
2 sentences1982Proof of such acts is not rendered inadmissible by the fact that they may tend to show the commission of another crime.” People v Savage, 225 Mich 84, 86 ; 195 NW 669 (1923).’ ” The trial court, prior to admission of evidence under the res gestae exception, should find that the evidence is relevant and that the probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect. 1982Proof of such acts is not rendered inadmissible by the fact that they may tend to show the commission of another crime.” People v Savage, 225 Mich 84, 86 ; 195 NW 669 (1923).’ ” The trial court, prior to admission of evidence under the res gestae exception, should find that the evidence is relevant and that the probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect. | 3 | 1981–1982 |
People v. Delgado
green
2 sentences2015ANALYSIS A. DUTTON STREET SHOOTING EVIDENCE Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the Dutton Street shooting under the res gestae exception.8 The trial court ruled that evidence of the Dutton Street shooting was admissible under the “res gestae exception.” “Under that exception, evidence of prior ‘bad acts’ is admissible where those are ‘so blended or connected with the (charged offense) that proof of one involves the other or explains the circumstances of the crime.’ ” People v Robinson, 128 Mich App 338, 340 ; 340 NW2d 303 (1983), quoting People 2015ANALYSIS A. DUTTON STREET SHOOTING EVIDENCE Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the Dutton Street shooting under the res gestae exception.8 The trial court ruled that evidence of the Dutton Street shooting was admissible under the “res gestae exception.” “Under that exception, evidence of prior ‘bad acts’ is admissible where those are ‘so blended or connected with the (charged offense) that proof of one involves the other or explains the circumstances of the crime.’ ” People v Robinson, 128 Mich App 338, 340 ; 340 NW2d 303 (1983), quoting People | 2 | 1984–2015 |
People v. Baker
green
2 sentences1976We hold that the hearsay testimony in this case corroborating the details of the alleged statutory rape is, on these facts, permissible under the extension of the res gestae doctrine as enunciated in People v Baker, supra. Defendant next contends that allowing complainant to testify as to prior episodes of intercourse with defendant was, in itself, reversible error. 1948In People v. Baker, 251 Mich. 322 , this Court said: “The admissibility of details of complaint, in the case of very young girls, has been permitted on a liberal extension of the res gestae doctrine. | 2 | 1948–1976 |
People v. Bynum
green
2 sentences2019“The decision to admit evidence is within a trial court’s discretion, which is reviewed for an abuse of that discretion.” People v Bynum, 496 Mich 610, 623 ; 852 NW2d 570 (2014). 2019“The decision to admit evidence is within a trial court’s discretion, which is reviewed for an abuse of that discretion.” People v Bynum, 496 Mich 610, 623 ; 852 NW2d 570 (2014). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Castillo
neutral
2 sentences2015Put another way, “res gestae” has been described as “the facts which so illustrate and characterize the principal fact as to constitute the whole transaction, and render the latter necessary to exhibit the former in its proper effect.” People v Castillo, 82 Mich App 476, 479-480 ; 266 NW2d 460 (1978). 2015Put another way, “res gestae” has been described as “the facts which so illustrate and characterize the principal fact as to constitute the whole transaction, and render the latter necessary to exhibit the former in its proper effect.” People v Castillo, 82 Mich App 476, 479-480 ; 266 NW2d 460 (1978). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Lawson
green
2 sentences2012In light of the obvious impracticalities of such a rule, we reaffirm the rule applied in Murray , and consonant with the rule applied in a majority of state and federal courts, that where the decision constitutes reasonable trial strategy, which is presumed, the right of confrontation may be waived by defense counsel as long as the defendant does not object on the record. 10 In reaffirming this rule, we also clarify that the right of confrontation is not a right that must be personally waived by the defendant in Michigan, despite our Court of Appeals’ decision in People v Lawson, 124 Mich App 2012In light of the obvious impracticalities of such a rule, we reaffirm the rule applied in Murray , and consonant with the rule applied in a majority of state and federal courts, that where the decision constitutes reasonable trial strategy, which is presumed, the right of confrontation may be waived by defense counsel as long as the defendant does not object on the record. 10 In reaffirming this rule, we also clarify that the right of confrontation is not a right that must be personally waived by the defendant in Michigan, despite our Court of Appeals’ decision in People v Lawson, 124 Mich App | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Gillis
green
2 sentences2009As in the case of burglary, the robber may be said to be engaged in the commission of the crime while he is endeavoring to escape and make away with the goods taken. " [ Id. at 116-117, 120 , 712 N.W.2d 419 , quoting Wharton, Law of Homicide (3d ed.), (§ 126, p. 186) (emphasis added).] In short, under the res gestae rule, a murder that occurs during the "unbroken chain of events surrounding the predicate felony" is committed in the perpetration of that felony. 2009Gillis, supra at 121 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Podolski
green
2 sentences2006The res gestae principle, which holds that a murder committed during the unbroken chain of events surrounding the predicate felony is committed “in the perpetration of” that felony, was adopted by this Court in People v Podolski, 332 Mich 508 ; 52 NW2d 201 (1952). 2006The res gestae principle, which holds that a murder committed during the unbroken chain of events surrounding the predicate felony is committed “in the perpetration of” that felony, was adopted by this Court in People v Podolski, 332 Mich 508 ; 52 NW2d 201 (1952). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Gimotty
red
2 sentences2006In People v Gimotty, 216 Mich App 254 ; 549 NW2d 39 (1996), the codefendant stole six dresses from a clothing store and he and the defendant sped away in the defendant’s vehicle. 2006In People v Gimotty, 216 Mich App 254 ; 549 NW2d 39 (1996), the codefendant stole six dresses from a clothing store and he and the defendant sped away in the defendant’s vehicle. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Randolph
red
2 sentences2006Defendant argues that the res gestae principle is no longer applicable in light of this Court’s decision in People v Randolph, 466 Mich 532 ; 648 NW2d 164 (2002). 2006Defendant argues that the res gestae principle is no longer applicable in light of this Court’s decision in People v Randolph, 466 Mich 532 ; 648 NW2d 164 (2002). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Escobedo v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1990See People v Gisondi, 9 Mich App 289, 293-294 ; 156 NW2d 601 (1967) ("[U]nder longstanding Michigan precedents, which antedate Escobedo [v Illinois, 378 US 478 ; 84 S Ct 1758 ; 12 L Ed 2d 977 (1964)] and Miranda , the accused’s silence in face of an accusation is not deemed an admission or confession in a criminal case, except when such silence occurs on the part of a suspected participant in a crime as a part of the res gestae”) (citations omitted). 1990See People v Gisondi, 9 Mich App 289, 293-294 ; 156 NW2d 601 (1967) ("[U]nder longstanding Michigan precedents, which antedate Escobedo [v Illinois, 378 US 478 ; 84 S Ct 1758 ; 12 L Ed 2d 977 (1964)] and Miranda , the accused’s silence in face of an accusation is not deemed an admission or confession in a criminal case, except when such silence occurs on the part of a suspected participant in a crime as a part of the res gestae”) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Baskin
green
1 sentence1986People v Baskin, 145 Mich App 526, 535 ; 378 NW2d 534 (1985). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Fudge
neutral
2 sentences1985People v Fudge, 66 Mich App 625, 629 ; 239 NW2d 686 (1976). 1985People v Fudge, 66 Mich App 625, 629 ; 239 NW2d 686 (1976). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Abrego
green
2 sentences1984The res gestae rule includes those who would testify that they saw nothing. *290 People v Abrego, 72 Mich App 176, 179 ; 249 NW2d 345 (1976). 9 The prosecutor cannot rely solely on computer compilations of data or statistical samplings to show the improbability of treatment. 1984The res gestae rule includes those who would testify that they saw nothing. *290 People v Abrego, 72 Mich App 176, 179 ; 249 NW2d 345 (1976). 9 The prosecutor cannot rely solely on computer compilations of data or statistical samplings to show the improbability of treatment. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Smedley
green
2 sentences1981People v Smedley, 37 Mich App 325 ; 194 NW2d 383 (1971). 1981People v Smedley, 37 Mich App 325 ; 194 NW2d 383 (1971). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Bernard Smith
green
2 sentences1981Proof of such acts is not rendered inadmissible by the fact that they may tend to show the commission of another crime.’ People v Savage, 225 Mich 84, 86 ; 195 NW 669 (1923).” See also People v Bernard Smith, 81 Mich App 561, 565-566 ; 266 NW2d 40 (1978), People v Aldridge, 47 Mich App 639 ; 209 NW2d 796 (1973). 1981Proof of such acts is not rendered inadmissible by the fact that they may tend to show the commission of another crime.’ People v Savage, 225 Mich 84, 86 ; 195 NW 669 (1923).” See also People v Bernard Smith, 81 Mich App 561, 565-566 ; 266 NW2d 40 (1978), People v Aldridge, 47 Mich App 639 ; 209 NW2d 796 (1973). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Aldridge
green
2 sentences1981Proof of such acts is not rendered inadmissible by the fact that they may tend to show the commission of another crime.’ People v Savage, 225 Mich 84, 86 ; 195 NW 669 (1923).” See also People v Bernard Smith, 81 Mich App 561, 565-566 ; 266 NW2d 40 (1978), People v Aldridge, 47 Mich App 639 ; 209 NW2d 796 (1973). 1981Proof of such acts is not rendered inadmissible by the fact that they may tend to show the commission of another crime.’ People v Savage, 225 Mich 84, 86 ; 195 NW 669 (1923).” See also People v Bernard Smith, 81 Mich App 561, 565-566 ; 266 NW2d 40 (1978), People v Aldridge, 47 Mich App 639 ; 209 NW2d 796 (1973). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| People v. Reed green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| People v. Spaulding green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| People v. Johnson green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| People v. DerMartzex green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| People v. Robinson green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| People v. Buero green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| People v. Solomon green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| People v. Woodward green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| People v. Alonzo Sanders neutral | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| People v. Moore green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| People v. Chaney neutral | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| People v. Leroy Morgan neutral | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| People v. Crown green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| People v. Green green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| People v. Bonneau green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| People v. Dickinson green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| People v. Baker neutral | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| People v. Giovannangeli green | 1 | 1954–1954 |
| People v. Gage green | 1 | 1948–1948 |
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.