People v. Swain

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Swain

878 N.W.2d 476, 499 Mich. 920, 2016 WL 2930929, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 875

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 18, 2016

Docket150994; Court of Appeals 314564

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 878 N.W.2d 476 (People v. Swain) 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. Swain, 878 N.W.2d 476, 499 Mich. 920, 2016 WL 2930929, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 875 (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we reverse the February 5, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals and we remand this case to the Calhoun Circuit Court for proceedings consistent with its judgment ordering a new trial. The Court of Appeals erred in applying People v Cress, 468 Mich 678 (2003), to an analysis of a successive motion filed pursuant to MCR 6.502(G)(2). Cress does not apply to the procedural threshold of MCR 6.502(G)(2), as the plain text of the court rule does not require that a defendant satisfy all elements of the test. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to give proper deference to the specific findings of the trial court that the defendant was entitled to a new trial. The defendant provided “a claim of new *921 evidence that was not discovered before the first” motion for relief from judgment, MCR 6.502(G)(2), and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial on the facts of this case. In light of this disposition, we decline to address the other issues presented in our order granting leave to appeal. We do not retain jurisdiction.

McCormack, J., did not participate because of her prior involvement in this case as counsel for a party.

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

On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we reverse the February 5, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals and we remand this case to the Calhoun Circuit Court for proceedings consistent with its judgment ordering a new trial. The Court of Appeals erred in applying People v Cress, 468 Mich 678 (2003), to an analysis of a successive motion filed pursuant to MCR 6.502(G)(2). Cress does not apply to the procedural threshold of MCR 6.502(G)(2), as the plain text of the court rule does not require that a defendant satisfy all elements of the test. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to give proper deference to the specific findings of the trial court that the defendant was entitled to a new trial. The defendant provided “a claim of new *921 evidence that was not discovered before the first” motion for relief from judgment, MCR 6.502(G)(2), and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial on the facts of this case. In light of this disposition, we decline to address the other issues presented in our order granting leave to appeal. We do not retain jurisdiction.

McCormack, J., did not participate because of her prior involvement in this case as counsel for a party.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

878 N.W.2d 476, 499 Mich. 920, 2016 WL 2930929, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-swain-mich-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack