People of Michigan v. Lorinda Irene Swain ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Order                                                                                        Michigan Supreme Court
    Lansing, Michigan
    May 18, 2016                                                                                         Robert P. Young, Jr.,
    Chief Justice
    150994                                                                                               Stephen J. Markman
    Brian K. Zahra
    Bridget M. McCormack
    David F. Viviano
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                                                    Richard H. Bernstein
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                                                                             Joan L. Larsen,
    Justices
    v                                                                 SC: 150994
    COA: 314564
    Calhoun CC: 2001-004547-FC
    LORINDA IRENE SWAIN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________________________________/
    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 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., not participating because of her prior involvement in this case as
    counsel for a party.
    I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
    foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
    May 18, 2016
    t0511
    Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 150994

Filed Date: 5/18/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/20/2016