Michigan State Appellate Defender Office's Marilena David, Jason Eggert, Steven Helton, Michael Mittlestat, and Adrienne Young will argue before the Michigan Supreme Court on issues including the standard of review for peremptory challenges, in-court identification, promises of leniency, sufficient nexus for a search warrant, and physical presence at sentencing. Arguments are set for January 11 and 12. The SADO attorneys and cases include:
• Steven Helton, People v Robert Yarbrough, Jr, MSC No. 161513
Peremptory Challenge/Standard of Review on Appeal
The court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the erroneous denial of a defendant's peremptory challenge is reviewed for harmless error, is subject to automatic reversal, or is subject to some different standard of review, see People v Kabongo, 507 Mich ___ (2021) (Docket No. 159346); and (2) if harmless error applies, who bears the burden of proving that the error was harmless. The case is set for argument on January 11 at 1 p.m.
• Adrienne Young, People v Dametrius Benjamin Posey, MSC No. 162373
In-court Identification MCL 769.34(10)
The court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the appellant was denied his right to due process when witness T. B. was allowed to identify him at trial, or denied the effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to object to the witness' in-court identification testimony; (2) whether the requirement in MCL 769.34(10) that the Court of Appeals affirm any sentence within the guidelines range, absent a scoring error or reliance on inaccurate information, is consistent with the Sixth Amendment, the due-process right to appellate review, and People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015); and, if not, (3) whether the appellant's sentence is reasonable and proportionate. The case is set for argument on January 11 at 1:40 p.m.
• Marilena David, People v Joshua Lamar-James Stewart, MSC No. 162497
Involuntary Statement/Promises of Leniency MCL 769.34(10)
The court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the statement the appellant made to the police was not voluntary because the interrogating officers employed overly coercive tactics, including promises of leniency. People v Conte, 421 Mich 704 (1984), see also People v Shipley, 256 Mich App 367, 373 (2003); (2) whether the requirement in MCL 769.34(10) that the Court of Appeals affirm any sentence within the guidelines range, absent a scoring error or reliance on inaccurate information, is consistent with the Sixth Amendment, the due-process right to appellate review, and People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015); and, if not, (3) whether the appellant's sentence is reasonable and proportionate. The case is set for argument on January 11 at 2:10 p.m.
• Jason Eggert, People v Marcus Lavell Lewis, MSC No. 162743
Search Warrant/Sufficient Nexus
The court directed the parties to address: (1) whether the search warrant affidavit established a sufficient nexus between the alleged drug trafficking and defendant's home, see Illinois v Gates, 462 US 213, 238 (1983); compare United States v Brown, 828 F3d 375 (CA 6, 2016), with United States v White, 874 F3d 490 (CA 6, 2017), and United States v Reed, 993 F3d 441 (CA 6, 2021); and (2) if not, whether the officers relied on the search warrant in good faith. People v Goldston, 470 Mich 523 (2004). The case is set for argument on January 11 at 2:40 p.m.
• Michael Mittlestat, People v Benoni Jonathon Enciso, MSC No. 162311
Physical Presence at Sentencing
The court directed the parties to address whether: (1) a defendant's unpreserved claim regarding his or her lack of physical presence at sentencing is subject to review for plain error; (2) lack of presence at sentencing is structural error; (3) if the error is not structural how a defendant could show the error affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings; and (4) if the error is structural how a prosecutor could rebut the presumption that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See People v Davis, ___ Mich ___ (2022) (Docket No. 161396). The case is set for argument on January 12 at 11:10 a.m.
