People of Michigan v. Thabo Mangedwa Jones

Michigan Supreme Court

People of Michigan v. Thabo Mangedwa Jones

909 N.W.2d 448, 501 Mich. 1054

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 20, 2018

DocketSC: 156776; COA: 330759

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 909 N.W.2d 448 (People of Michigan v. Thabo Mangedwa Jones) 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. Thabo Mangedwa Jones, 909 N.W.2d 448, 501 Mich. 1054 (Mich. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 31, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment holding that the exclusion of the victim's blood alcohol content was not harmless error, and we REMAND this case to that court for reconsideration of the issue. While the Court of Appeals identified potential consequences for defendant's trial strategy as a result of the exclusion of the disputed evidence, it erroneously equated such consequences with an assessment of whether it is "more probable than not that a different outcome would have resulted" had the evidence been admitted. People v. Lukity , 460 Mich. 484 , 495, 596 N.W.2d 607 (1999). See MCL 769.26. While defendant's defense strategy is one pertinent consideration, on remand the Court of Appeals must consider it alongside the weight and strength of the untainted evidence and the proofs as a whole. People v. Lyles , 501 Mich. 107 , 118, 905 N.W.2d 199 (2017).

We do not retain jurisdiction.

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

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 31, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment holding that the exclusion of the victim's blood alcohol content was not harmless error, and we REMAND this case to that court for reconsideration of the issue. While the Court of Appeals identified potential consequences for defendant's trial strategy as a result of the exclusion of the disputed evidence, it erroneously equated such consequences with an assessment of whether it is "more probable than not that a different outcome would have resulted" had the evidence been admitted. People v. Lukity , 460 Mich. 484 , 495, 596 N.W.2d 607 (1999). See MCL 769.26. While defendant's defense strategy is one pertinent consideration, on remand the Court of Appeals must consider it alongside the weight and strength of the untainted evidence and the proofs as a whole. People v. Lyles , 501 Mich. 107 , 118, 905 N.W.2d 199 (2017).

We do not retain jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

909 N.W.2d 448, 501 Mich. 1054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-thabo-mangedwa-jones-mich-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack