People v. CARNICOM
This text of 731 N.W.2d 94 (People v. CARNICOM) 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.
Gary Matthew CARNICOM, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 31, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal.
MARILYN J. KELLY, J., dissents and states as follows:
I agree with Court of Appeals Judge Cooper that this Court should grant leave to appeal for the purpose of clarifying our opinion in People v. Jacobsen, 448 Mich. 639, 532 N.W.2d 838 (1995). As Judge Cooper pointed out, "[i]f the court provides to indigent defendants the right to a court appointed and funded expert witness, there can be no requirement that the defendant first show the expert will support his claim. Otherwise, the right affords defendants no protection at all."
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
731 N.W.2d 94, 478 Mich. 853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carnicom-mich-2007.