The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) will hear oral arguments in four cases on Wednesday May 6, beginning at 9:30 a.m. The cases will be heard in the 6th floor courtroom at the Michigan Hall of Justice at 925 W. Ottawa St. in Lansing and will be livestreamed from the MSC website
The notice of cases is posted on the Supreme Court’s oral arguments web page.
The following brief accounts may not reflect the way that some or all of the court’s seven justices view the case. The attorneys may also disagree about the facts, issues, procedural history, and significance of this case. For further details, contact the attorneys
—————
Wednesday, May 6
Morning Session – 9:30 a.m.
168594
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MI, (attorney Katherine Wendt)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Kent CC - Noto, S.)
CRAIG LAMONT BUGGS, JR, (attorney Frank E. Stanley)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant allegedly sold heroin to a confidential informant on multiple occasions. The sales allegedly took place in two different vehicles. The Kent County Sheriff’s Office executed search warrants at a house and an apartment in Grand Rapids that were both allegedly connected with the defendant. The searches of those two locations resulted in the seizure of controlled substances and firearms, and the prosecution charged the defendant with drug trafficking and firearms offenses. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized at the two homes, arguing that the search warrants were not supported by probable cause because the affidavits supporting the warrants did not establish a sufficient nexus between the homes and the alleged sales of controlled substances. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s application for leave to appeal. But the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether a sufficient probable cause nexus existed between the defendant’s alleged drug sales elsewhere and the two homes for which the police obtained search warrants, 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), United States v Reed, 993 F3d 441 (CA 6, 2021), and United States v Sanders, 106 F4th 455 (CA 6, 2024); and (2) if not, whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, United States v Leon, 468 US 897 (1984), and People v Goldston, 470 Mich 523 (2004), applies to the facts of this case.
—————
169381
SENATE and SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, (attorney Mark Brewer)
Plaintiffs-Appellees/
Cross-Appellants,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Kent CC - Noto, S.)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and HOUSE CLERK, (attorney Kyle Asher)
Defendants-Appellants/
Cross-Appellees,
and
HOUSE SPEAKER,
Defendant.
The plaintiffs, Michigan Senate and Senate Majority Leader, filed suit in the Court of Claims to force the defendants, the Michigan House of Representatives, its Speaker, and the House Clerk, to present the Governor with nine bills that were passed by both Michigan’s House and Senate during a legislative session that adjourned without day (indefinitely) in December 2024, ending the session. In the Court of Claims, the House Speaker was dismissed without further challenge. The Court of Claims ultimately held that the plaintiffs had standing; the case presents a justiciable question; Const 1963, art 4, § 33 requires presentment of all bills passed by both legislative houses at least 14 days before their effective date; and plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment, but not mandamus or injunctive relief. The defendants filed a claim of appeal in the Court of Appeals, and the plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal to reverse the decision denying mandamus or injunctive relief. The plaintiffs also filed a bypass application in the Supreme Court, which denied the application. The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, reversed the denial of mandamus relief and remanded the case to the Court of Claims to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the defendants to present the bills at issue to the Governor. The defendants filed an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court and the plaintiffs filed an application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the applications.
—————
168160
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Martin Leaf)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Kalamazoo CC - Bridenstine, P.)
HUNTER JAMES HUDGINS, (attorney Heather Bergmann)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant struck and killed a pedestrian after she stepped in front of his car. The defendant admitted to having two drinks approximately 90 minutes before the accident, and his performance on the standardized field sobriety tests caused the police to believe he was under the influence of alcohol. The police arrested him and obtained a warrant to draw his blood. Testing revealed a bodily alcohol content (BAC) of 0.048. The defendant was charged with operating while impaired causing death, moving violation causing death, and operating as a minor with any bodily alcohol content. At trial, an expert estimated that the defendant’s BAC was between 0.078 and 0.094 at the time of the accident. The speed limit where the accident occurred was 25 miles per hour, but multiple experts estimated that the defendant was traveling between 30 and 35 miles per hour. There was also expert testimony presented by both parties that no driver would have had enough time to avoid the victim after she stepped in front of the vehicle, even if traveling 25 miles per hour. The jury acquitted the defendant of moving violation causing death, but convicted him of operating while impaired causing death and operating as a minor with any bodily alcohol content. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by giving a jury instruction on proximate causation that did not require the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim’s death was a direct and natural result of the defendant’s operation of his vehicle. The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s convictions in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on the causation element of operating while impaired causing death, MCL 257.625(3), (4)(a). See People v Schaefer, 473 Mich 418, 431-439 (2005).
—————
167190
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Timothy A. Baughman)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Wayne CC - Hathaway, B.)
WILLIAM MOTTEN, JR., (attorney Lauren K. Sutton)
Defendant-Appellant.
In 2000, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder, two counts of assault with intent to murder, and other offenses for shootings that occurred at a private club. At his first trial, he was acquitted of first-degree murder, but the jury could not reach a verdict on the remaining counts. A second trial resulted in another hung jury. At the conclusion of a third trial in 2002, the defendant was convicted of two counts of assault with intent to murder, felon-in-possession of a firearm, and felony-firearm. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 23.75 to 58.25 years for the assault with intent to murder convictions and 3 to 5 years for the felon-in-possession conviction, all consecutive to a 2-year term for felony-firearm. The trial court assigned 100 points to Offense Variable (OV) 3 on the basis that a victim was killed. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal and two unsuccessful motions for relief from judgment, the defendant filed a third motion for relief from judgment in 2020, arguing that his sentences are constitutionally invalid because they were based upon acquitted conduct in violation of People v Beck, 504 Mich 605 (2019). The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Beck does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. The Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s application for leave to appeal, but the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. On remand, the Court of Appeals issued a published opinion affirming the denial of the defendant’s successive motion for relief from judgment, holding that Beck does not apply retroactively to cases that have become final on direct review. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether the Court’s decision in Beck should apply retroactively to cases that have become final on direct review.
The notice of cases is posted on the Supreme Court’s oral arguments web page.
The following brief accounts may not reflect the way that some or all of the court’s seven justices view the case. The attorneys may also disagree about the facts, issues, procedural history, and significance of this case. For further details, contact the attorneys
—————
Wednesday, May 6
Morning Session – 9:30 a.m.
168594
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MI, (attorney Katherine Wendt)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Kent CC - Noto, S.)
CRAIG LAMONT BUGGS, JR, (attorney Frank E. Stanley)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant allegedly sold heroin to a confidential informant on multiple occasions. The sales allegedly took place in two different vehicles. The Kent County Sheriff’s Office executed search warrants at a house and an apartment in Grand Rapids that were both allegedly connected with the defendant. The searches of those two locations resulted in the seizure of controlled substances and firearms, and the prosecution charged the defendant with drug trafficking and firearms offenses. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized at the two homes, arguing that the search warrants were not supported by probable cause because the affidavits supporting the warrants did not establish a sufficient nexus between the homes and the alleged sales of controlled substances. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s application for leave to appeal. But the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address: (1) whether a sufficient probable cause nexus existed between the defendant’s alleged drug sales elsewhere and the two homes for which the police obtained search warrants, 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), United States v Reed, 993 F3d 441 (CA 6, 2021), and United States v Sanders, 106 F4th 455 (CA 6, 2024); and (2) if not, whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, United States v Leon, 468 US 897 (1984), and People v Goldston, 470 Mich 523 (2004), applies to the facts of this case.
—————
169381
SENATE and SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, (attorney Mark Brewer)
Plaintiffs-Appellees/
Cross-Appellants,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Kent CC - Noto, S.)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and HOUSE CLERK, (attorney Kyle Asher)
Defendants-Appellants/
Cross-Appellees,
and
HOUSE SPEAKER,
Defendant.
The plaintiffs, Michigan Senate and Senate Majority Leader, filed suit in the Court of Claims to force the defendants, the Michigan House of Representatives, its Speaker, and the House Clerk, to present the Governor with nine bills that were passed by both Michigan’s House and Senate during a legislative session that adjourned without day (indefinitely) in December 2024, ending the session. In the Court of Claims, the House Speaker was dismissed without further challenge. The Court of Claims ultimately held that the plaintiffs had standing; the case presents a justiciable question; Const 1963, art 4, § 33 requires presentment of all bills passed by both legislative houses at least 14 days before their effective date; and plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment, but not mandamus or injunctive relief. The defendants filed a claim of appeal in the Court of Appeals, and the plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal to reverse the decision denying mandamus or injunctive relief. The plaintiffs also filed a bypass application in the Supreme Court, which denied the application. The Court of Appeals, in a published opinion, reversed the denial of mandamus relief and remanded the case to the Court of Claims to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the defendants to present the bills at issue to the Governor. The defendants filed an application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court and the plaintiffs filed an application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the applications.
—————
168160
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Martin Leaf)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Kalamazoo CC - Bridenstine, P.)
HUNTER JAMES HUDGINS, (attorney Heather Bergmann)
Defendant-Appellant.
The defendant struck and killed a pedestrian after she stepped in front of his car. The defendant admitted to having two drinks approximately 90 minutes before the accident, and his performance on the standardized field sobriety tests caused the police to believe he was under the influence of alcohol. The police arrested him and obtained a warrant to draw his blood. Testing revealed a bodily alcohol content (BAC) of 0.048. The defendant was charged with operating while impaired causing death, moving violation causing death, and operating as a minor with any bodily alcohol content. At trial, an expert estimated that the defendant’s BAC was between 0.078 and 0.094 at the time of the accident. The speed limit where the accident occurred was 25 miles per hour, but multiple experts estimated that the defendant was traveling between 30 and 35 miles per hour. There was also expert testimony presented by both parties that no driver would have had enough time to avoid the victim after she stepped in front of the vehicle, even if traveling 25 miles per hour. The jury acquitted the defendant of moving violation causing death, but convicted him of operating while impaired causing death and operating as a minor with any bodily alcohol content. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by giving a jury instruction on proximate causation that did not require the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim’s death was a direct and natural result of the defendant’s operation of his vehicle. The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s convictions in an unpublished opinion. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on the causation element of operating while impaired causing death, MCL 257.625(3), (4)(a). See People v Schaefer, 473 Mich 418, 431-439 (2005).
—————
167190
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, (attorney Timothy A. Baughman)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
(Wayne CC - Hathaway, B.)
WILLIAM MOTTEN, JR., (attorney Lauren K. Sutton)
Defendant-Appellant.
In 2000, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder, two counts of assault with intent to murder, and other offenses for shootings that occurred at a private club. At his first trial, he was acquitted of first-degree murder, but the jury could not reach a verdict on the remaining counts. A second trial resulted in another hung jury. At the conclusion of a third trial in 2002, the defendant was convicted of two counts of assault with intent to murder, felon-in-possession of a firearm, and felony-firearm. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 23.75 to 58.25 years for the assault with intent to murder convictions and 3 to 5 years for the felon-in-possession conviction, all consecutive to a 2-year term for felony-firearm. The trial court assigned 100 points to Offense Variable (OV) 3 on the basis that a victim was killed. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal and two unsuccessful motions for relief from judgment, the defendant filed a third motion for relief from judgment in 2020, arguing that his sentences are constitutionally invalid because they were based upon acquitted conduct in violation of People v Beck, 504 Mich 605 (2019). The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Beck does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. The Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s application for leave to appeal, but the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. On remand, the Court of Appeals issued a published opinion affirming the denial of the defendant’s successive motion for relief from judgment, holding that Beck does not apply retroactively to cases that have become final on direct review. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether the Court’s decision in Beck should apply retroactively to cases that have become final on direct review.
––––––––––––––––––––
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
