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.
6 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. VanderVlietgreen2 sentences2025“The question is not whether the evidence falls within an exception to a supposed rule of exclusion, but rather whether the evidence [is] in any way relevant to a fact in issue other than by showing mere propensity.” VanderVliet, 444 Mich at 64 (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration in original). 2021The question is not whether the evidence falls within an exception to a supposed rule of exclusion, but rather whether the evidence [is] in any way relevant to a fact in issue other than by showing mere propensity.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration in original). | 2 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Engelman
green
2 sentences1998“Put simply the rule is inclusionary rather than exclusionary.” Engelman, supra at 213 . 1993"Put simply, the rule is inclusionary rather than exclusionary.” 13 Engelman, supra at 213 . | 2 | 1993–1998 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2021Thus, -5- Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible under MRE 404(b)(1) if the evidence is (1) offered for a proper purpose and not to prove the defendant’s character or propensity to commit the crime, (2) relevant to an issue or fact of consequence at trial, and (3) sufficiently probative to outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice, MRE 403. [People v Williams, 240 Mich App 316, 322-323 ; 614 NW2d 647 (2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] In this case, defendant identifies two witnesses whose testimony allegedly involved improper bad-acts evidence. 2021Thus, -5- Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible under MRE 404(b)(1) if the evidence is (1) offered for a proper purpose and not to prove the defendant’s character or propensity to commit the crime, (2) relevant to an issue or fact of consequence at trial, and (3) sufficiently probative to outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice, MRE 403. [People v Williams, 240 Mich App 316, 322-323 ; 614 NW2d 647 (2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] In this case, defendant identifies two witnesses whose testimony allegedly involved improper bad-acts evidence. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.