People v. Duenaz

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Duenaz

873 N.W.2d 303, 498 Mich. 969, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 56

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 2016

Docket150286

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 873 N.W.2d 303 (People v. Duenaz) 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 v. Duenaz, 873 N.W.2d 303, 498 Mich. 969, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 56 (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

reported below: 306 Mich App 85. On January 14, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the July 10, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered, and it is denied, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. We note, however, that the Court of Appeals has remanded this case to the St. Clair Circuit Court for resentencing, and that any such resentencing must comply with the procedure described in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015).

In addition, we encourage the Legislature to clarify whether evidence of prior sexual abuse constitutes “sexual conduct” within the meaning of the rape-shield statute, MCL 750.520j. The statute does not define “sexual conduct,” and the proper construction of that term is a question that has divided Justices of this Court. See People v Parks, 483 Mich 1040 (2009) (Young, J., concurring) (Markman, J., dissenting); People v Piscopo, 480 Mich 966 (2007) (Markman, J., dissenting).

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

reported below: 306 Mich App 85. On January 14, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the July 10, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered, and it is denied, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. We note, however, that the Court of Appeals has remanded this case to the St. Clair Circuit Court for resentencing, and that any such resentencing must comply with the procedure described in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015).

In addition, we encourage the Legislature to clarify whether evidence of prior sexual abuse constitutes “sexual conduct” within the meaning of the rape-shield statute, MCL 750.520j. The statute does not define “sexual conduct,” and the proper construction of that term is a question that has divided Justices of this Court. See People v Parks, 483 Mich 1040 (2009) (Young, J., concurring) (Markman, J., dissenting); People v Piscopo, 480 Mich 966 (2007) (Markman, J., dissenting).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

873 N.W.2d 303, 498 Mich. 969, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-duenaz-mich-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack