People v. Gursky

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Gursky

764 N.W.2d 570, 483 Mich. 999

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 7, 2009

Docket137251

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 764 N.W.2d 570 (People v. Gursky) 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. Gursky, 764 N.W.2d 570, 483 Mich. 999 (Mich. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The application for leave to appeal the July 17, 2008, judgment of the Court of Appeals is granted, limited to the issues: (1) whether the statements made by the complainant to Stacy Morgan on or about May 4, 2006, were "shown to have been spontaneous and without indication of manufacture” within the meaning of MRE 803A(2), and (2) whether it was more probable than not that any error in this regard was outcome determinative. See People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 495-496 (1999).

We further order the Macomb Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative Order No. 2003-3, to determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint counsel to represent the defendant in this Court.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. Court of Appeals No. 274945.

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

The application for leave to appeal the July 17, 2008, judgment of the Court of Appeals is granted, limited to the issues: (1) whether the statements made by the complainant to Stacy Morgan on or about May 4, 2006, were "shown to have been spontaneous and without indication of manufacture” within the meaning of MRE 803A(2), and (2) whether it was more probable than not that any error in this regard was outcome determinative. See People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 495-496 (1999).

We further order the Macomb Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative Order No. 2003-3, to determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, to appoint counsel to represent the defendant in this Court.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. Court of Appeals No. 274945.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 N.W.2d 570, 483 Mich. 999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gursky-mich-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack