People v. Breeding
This text of 748 N.W.2d 882 (People v. Breeding) 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.
Opinion
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
David Craig BREEDING, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 23, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on leave granted, of the defendant's claim that his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him was violated by the trial court's admission, at the probation revocation hearing, of certain statements by out-of-court declarants. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). In considering this claim, the Court of Appeals shall address whether the federal circuit Court of Appeals decisions addressing this issue are correct that Crawford does not apply to probation revocation hearings. See, e.g., United States v. Kelley, 446 F.3d 688 (C.A.7, 2006); United States v. Rondeau, 430 F.3d 44 (C.A.1, 2005); United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980 (C.A.9, 2005); United States v. Kirby, 418 F.3d 621 (C.A.6, 2005); United States v. Martin, 382 F.3d 840 (C.A.8, 2004); and United States v. Aspinall, 389 F.3d 332 (C.A.2, 2004). 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
748 N.W.2d 882, 481 Mich. 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-breeding-mich-2008.