People v. O'NON

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. O'NON

763 N.W.2d 286, 483 Mich. 943

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 8, 2009

Docket136514

StatusPublished

This text of 763 N.W.2d 286 (People v. O'NON) 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. O'NON, 763 N.W.2d 286, 483 Mich. 943 (Mich. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Summary Disposition April 8, 2009:

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 issues: (1) whether the redacted transcript of the prior testimony of Matthew O’Non at his own trial, which was admitted in this case, was “testimonial” under Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 (2004); (2) whether any statements in that transcript were hearsay under MRE 801(c) because they were offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted and therefore were barred by Crawford-, and (3) whether all statements in that transcript that were offered to prove the falsity of the matters asserted necessarily were not hearsay under MRE 801(c) and thus were not barred by Crawford. 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. We do not retain jurisdiction. Court of Appeals No. 280262.

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

Summary Disposition April 8, 2009:

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 issues: (1) whether the redacted transcript of the prior testimony of Matthew O’Non at his own trial, which was admitted in this case, was “testimonial” under Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 (2004); (2) whether any statements in that transcript were hearsay under MRE 801(c) because they were offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted and therefore were barred by Crawford-, and (3) whether all statements in that transcript that were offered to prove the falsity of the matters asserted necessarily were not hearsay under MRE 801(c) and thus were not barred by Crawford. 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. We do not retain jurisdiction. Court of Appeals No. 280262.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 N.W.2d 286, 483 Mich. 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-onon-mich-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack