claim of prosecutorial error in Michigan

2026Review of a claim of prosecutorial error requires a determination “whether the defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.” People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465, 475 ; 802 NW2d 627 (2010). “[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.” Id.

2025But in order to preserve a claim of prosecutorial error, “ ‘a defendant must contemporaneously object and request a curative instruction.’ ” People v Isrow, 339 Mich App 522 , 529; 984 NW2d 528 (2021), quoting People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465, 475 ; 802 NW2d 627 (2010).

2020To preserve a claim of prosecutorial error, “a defendant must have timely and specifically objected below, unless an objection could not have cured the error.” People v Brown, 294 Mich App 377, 382 ; 811 NW2d 531 (2011). “[A] defendant must contemporaneously object and request a curative instruction.” People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465, 475 ; 802 NW2d 627 (2010).

2020To preserve a claim of prosecutorial error, “a defendant must have timely and specifically objected below, unless an objection could not have cured the error.” People v Brown, 294 Mich App 377, 382 ; 811 NW2d 531 (2011). “[A] defendant must contemporaneously object and request a curative instruction.” People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465, 475 ; 802 NW2d 627 (2010).

2015Where there is no contemporaneous objection or request for a curative instruction, a claim of prosecutorial error is “limited to ascertaining whether plain error affected defendant’s substantial rights.” People v Brown, 279 Mich App 116, 134 ; 755 NW2d 664 (2008).

2015Where there is no contemporaneous objection or request for a curative instruction, a claim of prosecutorial error is “limited to ascertaining whether plain error affected defendant’s substantial rights.” People v Brown, 279 Mich App 116, 134 ; 755 NW2d 664 (2008).

2020Id.

2016People v Noble, 238 Mich App 647, 660-661 ; 608 NW2d 123 (1999).

2017People v Mann, 288 Mich App 114, 119 ; 792 NW2d 53 (2010).

2017People v Mann, 288 Mich App 114, 119 ; 792 NW2d 53 (2010).

2017See also People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015) (regarding prosecutorial error). 7 People v Blackmon, 280 Mich App 253, 261, 270 ; 761 NW2d 172 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (alteration in original). 8 “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” MRE 403 (emphasis added). 9 People v Mesik (On Reconsideration), 285 Mich App

2017See also People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015) (regarding prosecutorial error). 7 People v Blackmon, 280 Mich App 253, 261, 270 ; 761 NW2d 172 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (alteration in original). 8 “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” MRE 403 (emphasis added). 9 People v Mesik (On Reconsideration), 285 Mich App

2017“To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial error, a defendant must demonstrate that he or she was ‘denied a fair and impartial trial.’ ” Bosca, 310 Mich App at 26 , quoting People v Brown, 294 Mich App 377, 382 ; 811 NW2d 531 (2011).

2017“To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial error, a defendant must demonstrate that he or she was ‘denied a fair and impartial trial.’ ” Bosca, 310 Mich App at 26 , quoting People v Brown, 294 Mich App 377, 382 ; 811 NW2d 531 (2011).

2016People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 70 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007).

2016People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 70 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007).

2026People v Ackerman, 257 Mich App 434, 448 ; 669 NW2d 818 (2003).

2026People v Ackerman, 257 Mich App 434, 448 ; 669 NW2d 818 (2003).

2026People v Bailey, 310 Mich App 703, 721 ; 873 NW2d 855 (2015).

2026People v Bailey, 310 Mich App 703, 721 ; 873 NW2d 855 (2015).

2025McGhee, 268 Mich App at 630 .

2021Mullins, 322 Mich App at 172 .

2021When a claim of prosecutorial error is unpreserved, this Court only will review the alleged error “if a curative instruction could not have remedied the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s comments or if the failure to consider the issue would result in a miscarriage of justice.” People v Mayhew, 236 Mich App 112, 122-123 ; 600 NW2d 370 (1999); see MCL 769.26.

2021When a claim of prosecutorial error is unpreserved, this Court only will review the alleged error “if a curative instruction could not have remedied the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s comments or if the failure to consider the issue would result in a miscarriage of justice.” People v Mayhew, 236 Mich App 112, 122-123 ; 600 NW2d 370 (1999); see MCL 769.26.

2020We review an unpreserved claim of prosecutorial error for plain error affecting the defendant’s substantial rights, People v Norfleet, 317 Mich App 649 , 660 n 5; 897 NW2d 195 (2016), which requires a showing of prejudice, meaning that the error affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings.

2020We review an unpreserved claim of prosecutorial error for plain error affecting the defendant’s substantial rights, People v Norfleet, 317 Mich App 649 , 660 n 5; 897 NW2d 195 (2016), which requires a showing of prejudice, meaning that the error affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings.

2019Cox, 268 Mich App at 451 .

2019People v Jackson, 313 Mich App 409, 425-426 ; 884 NW2d 297 (2015).

2019People v Jackson, 313 Mich App 409, 425-426 ; 884 NW2d 297 (2015).

2017People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1, 22 ; 776 NW2d 314 (2009).

2017People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1, 22 ; 776 NW2d 314 (2009).

2016If a claim of prosecutorial error is based on the assertion that the prosecutor made an improper argument, the reviewing court must read the remarks in context, evaluating them “in light of defense arguments and the relationship they bear to the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether a defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.” People v Brown, 267 Mich App 141, 152 ; 703 NW2d 230 (2005).

2016If a claim of prosecutorial error is based on the assertion that the prosecutor made an improper argument, the reviewing court must read the remarks in context, evaluating them “in light of defense arguments and the relationship they bear to the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether a defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.” People v Brown, 267 Mich App 141, 152 ; 703 NW2d 230 (2005).

2015“To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial error, a defendant, in general, must demonstrate that he or she was denied a fair and impartial trial.” People v Bosca, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 317633, issued March 26, 2015), slip op, p 11 (internal citations omitted). -11- “A trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Hartwick, 303 Mich App at 255 .

2015Defendant writes: “The prosecutor acted in bad faith intentionally, just to get a conviction, where his evidence didn’t support his made up lies, he tried to sculpt to be fact knowing they were false and very whimsical and it came down to a credibility contest, the prosecutor’s comments were prejudicial to me, the defendant, receiving a fair trial where the jury now may have took into consideration the comments of the prosecution in making their verdict.” It is true that “[a] prosecutor’s role within our judicial system is to seek justice and not merely to convict.” People v Meissner, 294 Mich

2015Defendant writes: “The prosecutor acted in bad faith intentionally, just to get a conviction, where his evidence didn’t support his made up lies, he tried to sculpt to be fact knowing they were false and very whimsical and it came down to a credibility contest, the prosecutor’s comments were prejudicial to me, the defendant, receiving a fair trial where the jury now may have took into consideration the comments of the prosecution in making their verdict.” It is true that “[a] prosecutor’s role within our judicial system is to seek justice and not merely to convict.” People v Meissner, 294 Mich

2015The prosecution may argue from facts in evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 282 ; 531 NW2d 659 (1995), and may argue based on those facts and inferences that a witness is credible or not credible, People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 240 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008).

2015The prosecution may argue from facts in evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 282 ; 531 NW2d 659 (1995), and may argue based on those facts and inferences that a witness is credible or not credible, People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 240 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008).

2015“We review *27 de novo [a] defendant’s constitutional due-process claim.” People v Schumacher, 276 Mich App 165, 176 ; 740 NW2d 534 (2007).

2015“We review *27 de novo [a] defendant’s constitutional due-process claim.” People v Schumacher, 276 Mich App 165, 176 ; 740 NW2d 534 (2007).

2015When reviewing a claim of prosecutorial error, this Court “examine[s] the pertinent portion of the record and evaluate[s] a prosecutor’s remarks in context.” People v Callon, 256 Mich App 312, 329 ; 662 NW2d 501 (2003).

2015When reviewing a claim of prosecutorial error, this Court “examine[s] the pertinent portion of the record and evaluate[s] a prosecutor’s remarks in context.” People v Callon, 256 Mich App 312, 329 ; 662 NW2d 501 (2003).