By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
The current standard for judicial review of prejudicial errors that could convict people on crimes they did not commit was on the witness stand, so to speak, during oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Justices of the high court heard arguments in People v. Nelson (MSC Docket No. 166297), which argued the harmless error test should be overruled or amended by the bench.
The defendant in the case brandished a handgun during a confrontation with her boyfriend and was convicted after a jury trial on charges of felonious assault, felony-firearm and domestic violence. Self-defense was an issue at trial, as the defendant said her boyfriend threatened to kill her while he was choking her.
The trial excluded evidence of the threat on direct examination that was admitted on cross-examination. The Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion affirmed the convictions.
Before the high court on Wednesday, attorney Wade Fink argued the main purpose of appellate review in criminal cases was to prevent wrongful convictions and to ensure convictions maintain integrity through sound jurisprudence.
In his client’s case, Fink said she was barred in direct examination from telling her side of the story, which he argued was a plain error, and the appellate court’s holding that the error was harmless was also erroneous.
Overall, Fink said since the courts all agree there was an error and deciding the case should be based on examining prejudice, he asked the bench to review its current standard for prejudice in case of both preserved constitutional and non-constitutional errors.
Fink also asked justices to overrule the current standard forged in People v. Lukity, decided by the high court in 1999, and to reapply the previous Chapman standard to all preserved errors, whether constitutional or non-constitutional.
The Chapman standard seeks to examine whether a judicial error was prejudicial beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lukity standard presumes that “a preserved non-constitutional error is not a ground for reversal unless it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.”
Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement asked Fink if his client still wins under the Lukity standard, to which the attorney said yes, even when it’s his client’s burden under a preponderance standard to show prejudice.
In a moment of back and forth with Justice Brian Zahra, Fink said Lukity should be overruled as wrongly decided because it did away with numerous pieces of precedent and suggested that there was now a burden for a defendant to prove an error was a miscarriage of justice.
Clement brought it back to the Lukity question: if his client could prevail under the current standard, why should they adopt a different standard? And if that were the remedy, would the court also have to overrule an earlier decision on the matter of prejudice, like 1996’s People v. Mateo?
Fink said the current standard was unworkable and unjust, but it didn’t mean the court had to start cherry-picking other cases to overrule like Mateo.
Mitch Tibbs, representing the state and the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, argued the court should respect the doctrine of stare decisis and affirm the lower courts.
“The defendant asked this court to ignore this doctrine and upend a quarter century of criminal appellate practice based solely on a belief that a majority of this court is willing to do so,” Tibbs said. “But Lukity was not wrongly decided; it correctly interpreted (state law) to give force to the Legislature’s intent by placing the burden upon the defendant to show an error was outcome determinative by more probable than not standard.”
Tibbs said even if the bench disagrees, Lukity has not proven unworkable.
“There’s been no criticism or difficulty in applying it, and a reliance interests weigh heavily in favor of retaining it, because an entire generation of lawyers and judges have grown up practicing under it,” Tibbs said. “Either of defendant’s proposed tests would lead to increased evidentiary challenges in the courts, and the Court of Appeals would struggle to apply any new any new test this court adopts.”
Gongwer News Service
The current standard for judicial review of prejudicial errors that could convict people on crimes they did not commit was on the witness stand, so to speak, during oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Justices of the high court heard arguments in People v. Nelson (MSC Docket No. 166297), which argued the harmless error test should be overruled or amended by the bench.
The defendant in the case brandished a handgun during a confrontation with her boyfriend and was convicted after a jury trial on charges of felonious assault, felony-firearm and domestic violence. Self-defense was an issue at trial, as the defendant said her boyfriend threatened to kill her while he was choking her.
The trial excluded evidence of the threat on direct examination that was admitted on cross-examination. The Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion affirmed the convictions.
Before the high court on Wednesday, attorney Wade Fink argued the main purpose of appellate review in criminal cases was to prevent wrongful convictions and to ensure convictions maintain integrity through sound jurisprudence.
In his client’s case, Fink said she was barred in direct examination from telling her side of the story, which he argued was a plain error, and the appellate court’s holding that the error was harmless was also erroneous.
Overall, Fink said since the courts all agree there was an error and deciding the case should be based on examining prejudice, he asked the bench to review its current standard for prejudice in case of both preserved constitutional and non-constitutional errors.
Fink also asked justices to overrule the current standard forged in People v. Lukity, decided by the high court in 1999, and to reapply the previous Chapman standard to all preserved errors, whether constitutional or non-constitutional.
The Chapman standard seeks to examine whether a judicial error was prejudicial beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lukity standard presumes that “a preserved non-constitutional error is not a ground for reversal unless it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.”
Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement asked Fink if his client still wins under the Lukity standard, to which the attorney said yes, even when it’s his client’s burden under a preponderance standard to show prejudice.
In a moment of back and forth with Justice Brian Zahra, Fink said Lukity should be overruled as wrongly decided because it did away with numerous pieces of precedent and suggested that there was now a burden for a defendant to prove an error was a miscarriage of justice.
Clement brought it back to the Lukity question: if his client could prevail under the current standard, why should they adopt a different standard? And if that were the remedy, would the court also have to overrule an earlier decision on the matter of prejudice, like 1996’s People v. Mateo?
Fink said the current standard was unworkable and unjust, but it didn’t mean the court had to start cherry-picking other cases to overrule like Mateo.
Mitch Tibbs, representing the state and the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, argued the court should respect the doctrine of stare decisis and affirm the lower courts.
“The defendant asked this court to ignore this doctrine and upend a quarter century of criminal appellate practice based solely on a belief that a majority of this court is willing to do so,” Tibbs said. “But Lukity was not wrongly decided; it correctly interpreted (state law) to give force to the Legislature’s intent by placing the burden upon the defendant to show an error was outcome determinative by more probable than not standard.”
Tibbs said even if the bench disagrees, Lukity has not proven unworkable.
“There’s been no criticism or difficulty in applying it, and a reliance interests weigh heavily in favor of retaining it, because an entire generation of lawyers and judges have grown up practicing under it,” Tibbs said. “Either of defendant’s proposed tests would lead to increased evidentiary challenges in the courts, and the Court of Appeals would struggle to apply any new any new test this court adopts.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
