People of Michigan v. Michael Patrick-Murphy Hamilton

CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 3, 2017
Docket153451
StatusPublished

This text of People of Michigan v. Michael Patrick-Murphy Hamilton (People of Michigan v. Michael Patrick-Murphy Hamilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People of Michigan v. Michael Patrick-Murphy Hamilton, (Mich. 2017).

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

February 3, 2017 Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

153451 Robert P. Young, Jr. Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Joan L. Larsen, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 153451 COA: 319980 Jackson CC: 12-004848-FC MICHAEL PATRICK-MURPHY HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 9, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE Part III of the Court of Appeals opinion (entitled “EXPERT TESTIMONY”), and we REMAND this case to that court for reconsideration of the defendant’s claims regarding the qualification and testimony of Rosemary Heise. The Court of Appeals majority correctly cited People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 495-496 (1999), for the proposition that a preserved, non-constitutional error is not a ground for reversal unless it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative. It erred, however, in determining that because Heise’s testimony was arguably cumulative, it was harmless. See People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 555 (1998) (“[T]he fact that [a] statement was cumulative, standing alone, does not automatically result in a finding of harmless error.”). On remand, the Court of Appeals shall engage in “an examination of the entire cause,” Lukity, 460 Mich at 495-496, and reconsider whether it is more probable than not that any error was outcome determinative. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. February 3, 2017 t0131 Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Smith
581 N.W.2d 654 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1998)
People v. Lukity
596 N.W.2d 607 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People of Michigan v. Michael Patrick-Murphy Hamilton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-michael-patrick-murphy-hamilton-mich-2017.