People v. Minter

922 N.W.2d 371
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 13, 2019
DocketSC: 159103; COA: 347523
StatusPublished

This text of 922 N.W.2d 371 (People v. Minter) 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. Minter, 922 N.W.2d 371 (Mich. 2019).

Opinion

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration and to waive transcript requirement are GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the February 6, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because, while the assistance of a forensic pathologist may be a required component of the defense in this case, see People v. Kennedy , 502 Mich. 206, 917 N.W.2d 355 (2018), Ake v. Oklahoma , 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), the unavailability of the properly noticed forensic pathologist, Dr. Karl Williams, is only speculative at this point. The motion to stay is DENIED.

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

Related

Ake v. Oklahoma
470 U.S. 68 (Supreme Court, 1985)
People of Michigan v. Johnny Ray Kennedy
917 N.W.2d 355 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
922 N.W.2d 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-minter-mich-2019.