By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether automatic life without parole sentences for certain felony murder convictions constitutes cruel and unusual punishment as part of the seven cases it will consider in December.
In People v. Langston (Docket No. 163968), the defendant was convicted of felony murder in 1976 with the Court of Appeals remanding for a new trial because the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on malice.
In 1980, the Supreme Court decided People v. Aaron and held that malice is a required element for any murder, including felony murder, but said the ruling only applied to trials in progress and in the future.
The defendant’s felony murder conviction was reinstated by the Supreme Court after that decision.
In 2020, the defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing that the prospective-only statement in Aaron was contrary to law, an improper application of constitutional avoidance and violated due process.
Some criminal justice advocates are critical of the felony murder charge because it can be charged if a death occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a dangerous felony, even if the person charged did not intend to kill or did not specifically kill the person. It can carry an automatic life without parole sentence.
The Supreme Court is ordering arguments on whether Aaron correctly limited its application to prospective-only relief; whether, in the absence of evidence that the defendant acted with malice, mandatory life without parole for felony murder constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment; whether a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for felony murder is cruel and/or unusual punishment in all cases decided before Aaron, where the jury was not required to make a finding of malice, or only in those pre-Aaron cases where overwhelming evidence of malice was not otherwise presented at trial; among other things.
The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan has filed briefs in the case urging the court to keep the Aaron precedent as is. The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan are on the opposing side of the case.
The case will be heard during a morning session on Dec. 10.
Other cases being argued before the Supreme Court on Dec. 10 starting at 9:30 a.m. are:
• Bowerman v. Red Oak Management (Docket No. 167718). In this negligence case, the court will decide whether genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether: the defendant Westveld Services, LLC, breached a duty that it owed to the plaintiff and if defendant Red Oak Management Co., Inc., violated MCL 554.139(1)(a), which requires a lessor of residential premises to keep the common areas fit for the use intended by the parties.
• People v. Soriano (Docket No. 167373). In this case involving a defendant on LSD making incriminating statements to police after being advised of his constitutional rights, the court will consider whether the trial court clearly erred when it found that the defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, and whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain an expert to address the defendant’s level of intoxication while in the hospital.
The court will hear four more cases beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Dec. 11. They are:
• People v. Shaver (Docket No. 167736). In this sex offender case, the court will decide whether its decision in People v. Betts (2021), applies retroactively to cases that have become final after the expiration of the period for direct review.
• Zink v. Genesee Intermediate School District (Docket No. 167913). In this whistleblower case, the court will consider whether constructive discharge constitutes adverse employment action under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, whether Joliet v. Pitoniak (2006) and Magee v. Daimler Chrysler, 472 Mich 108 (2005) were correctly decided and if they were properly applied in this case; and if they were not correctly decided, whether the court should overrule them.
• People v. Walker (Docket No. 166722). In this case involving drug-related convictions, the court will consider whether, when scoring Offense Variable 15 (aggravated controlled substance offenses) under either of the circumstances described in MCL 777.45(1)(h), which involves drug trafficking, a defendant may be properly assigned points only for the sentencing offense or whether the sentencing court may consider conduct that was part of the same offense and formed the basis of a charge that was dismissed as a result of a plea bargain.
• Sherman v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Company (Docket No. 167826). In this auto insurance case, the court will consider whether the Court of Appeals applied the proper standard of review in its consideration of the trial court’s factual findings made in connection with a decision to grant or deny equitable rescission; and, if not, the standard of review that should have been applied. It will also consider if the trial court erred in its determination, whether the Court of Appeals should have remanded to the trial court to allow it to rebalance the equities in the first instance.
Gongwer News Service
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether automatic life without parole sentences for certain felony murder convictions constitutes cruel and unusual punishment as part of the seven cases it will consider in December.
In People v. Langston (Docket No. 163968), the defendant was convicted of felony murder in 1976 with the Court of Appeals remanding for a new trial because the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on malice.
In 1980, the Supreme Court decided People v. Aaron and held that malice is a required element for any murder, including felony murder, but said the ruling only applied to trials in progress and in the future.
The defendant’s felony murder conviction was reinstated by the Supreme Court after that decision.
In 2020, the defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing that the prospective-only statement in Aaron was contrary to law, an improper application of constitutional avoidance and violated due process.
Some criminal justice advocates are critical of the felony murder charge because it can be charged if a death occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a dangerous felony, even if the person charged did not intend to kill or did not specifically kill the person. It can carry an automatic life without parole sentence.
The Supreme Court is ordering arguments on whether Aaron correctly limited its application to prospective-only relief; whether, in the absence of evidence that the defendant acted with malice, mandatory life without parole for felony murder constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment; whether a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for felony murder is cruel and/or unusual punishment in all cases decided before Aaron, where the jury was not required to make a finding of malice, or only in those pre-Aaron cases where overwhelming evidence of malice was not otherwise presented at trial; among other things.
The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan has filed briefs in the case urging the court to keep the Aaron precedent as is. The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan are on the opposing side of the case.
The case will be heard during a morning session on Dec. 10.
Other cases being argued before the Supreme Court on Dec. 10 starting at 9:30 a.m. are:
• Bowerman v. Red Oak Management (Docket No. 167718). In this negligence case, the court will decide whether genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether: the defendant Westveld Services, LLC, breached a duty that it owed to the plaintiff and if defendant Red Oak Management Co., Inc., violated MCL 554.139(1)(a), which requires a lessor of residential premises to keep the common areas fit for the use intended by the parties.
• People v. Soriano (Docket No. 167373). In this case involving a defendant on LSD making incriminating statements to police after being advised of his constitutional rights, the court will consider whether the trial court clearly erred when it found that the defendant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, and whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain an expert to address the defendant’s level of intoxication while in the hospital.
The court will hear four more cases beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Dec. 11. They are:
• People v. Shaver (Docket No. 167736). In this sex offender case, the court will decide whether its decision in People v. Betts (2021), applies retroactively to cases that have become final after the expiration of the period for direct review.
• Zink v. Genesee Intermediate School District (Docket No. 167913). In this whistleblower case, the court will consider whether constructive discharge constitutes adverse employment action under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, whether Joliet v. Pitoniak (2006) and Magee v. Daimler Chrysler, 472 Mich 108 (2005) were correctly decided and if they were properly applied in this case; and if they were not correctly decided, whether the court should overrule them.
• People v. Walker (Docket No. 166722). In this case involving drug-related convictions, the court will consider whether, when scoring Offense Variable 15 (aggravated controlled substance offenses) under either of the circumstances described in MCL 777.45(1)(h), which involves drug trafficking, a defendant may be properly assigned points only for the sentencing offense or whether the sentencing court may consider conduct that was part of the same offense and formed the basis of a charge that was dismissed as a result of a plea bargain.
• Sherman v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Company (Docket No. 167826). In this auto insurance case, the court will consider whether the Court of Appeals applied the proper standard of review in its consideration of the trial court’s factual findings made in connection with a decision to grant or deny equitable rescission; and, if not, the standard of review that should have been applied. It will also consider if the trial court erred in its determination, whether the Court of Appeals should have remanded to the trial court to allow it to rebalance the equities in the first instance.
––––––––––––––––––––
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
