One Court of Justice

During a fourth and final police interview, the defendant confessed to murdering his brother and sister-in-law.  At that point in the pretrial proceedings, the confession was the primary evidence implicating defendant in the murders.  The trial court excluded the testimony of one expert witness (a social psychologist), who proposed to testify regarding police interrogation techniques and the existence of “false confessions.”  The trial court also excluded the testimony of another expert witness (a clinical and forensic psychologist), who proposed to testify regarding defendant’s psychological profile, which he constructed from psychological tests and clinical interviews of defendant, as well as to testify that the circumstances of defendant’s confession were consistent with the literature on false confessions.  The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court’s determination that the social psychologist’s testimony was unreliable and would not assist the trier of fact was not an abuse of discretion.  The Court of Appeals also concluded that the trial court’s determination that the clinical and forensic psychologist’s testimony would not assist the trier of fact, after the testimony regarding false confessions was excluded, also did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

In a lead opinion authored by Justice Mary Beth Kelly, and joined by Chief Justice Young and Justice Zahra, the Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Kowalski determined that the claim of a false confession is “beyond the ken of common knowledge”—an inquiry that focuses on whether the proposed expert testimony is on a matter that would be commonly understood by the average person—and thus satisfied the threshold requirement under MRE 702 that the proposed expert testimony will “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”  Thus, the lead opinion held that expert testimony about false confessions is admissible when it satisfies the other requirements of MRE 702.  But the lead opinion also affirmed the exclusion of the social psychologist’s testimony and of the portion of the clinical and forensic psychologist’s testimony that was based on false-confession research because the testimony was not reliable.  Further, the Michigan Supreme Court held that exclusion of this testimony did not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense.  The Michigan Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower courts’ rulings excluding the clinical and forensic psychologist’s testimony regarding the psychological testing he performed and remanded the case to the trial court to determine its admissibility.

Read more »

On July 30th, the Michigan Supreme Court published the opinion of Chief Justice Young, joined by Justices Markman, Mary Beth Kelly and Zahra, in Douglas v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 143503.  In this case, the Court set forth the rules by which allowable expenses can be awarded for attendant care provided to an injured party by a family member.  Specifically, the majority found that such expenses must not only be reasonably necessary for the injured party’s care, recovery or rehabilitation, but also that those expenses must be actually incurred meaning, in the Court’s view, that the plaintiff must prove the number of hours that attendant care was actually provided by the family member and that the caretaker actually expected compensation for those attendant care services.  The Supreme Court also found that an hourly rate for such services must be based upon the individual caretaker’s hourly rate for such services, and not solely based upon a commercial agency’s rate for such services

Read more »

In Price v. Kosmalski (In re Receivership of 119010 S. Francis Rd.), No. 143123, the Michigan Supreme Court held that courts cannot grant a lien for receivership expenses on the proceeds of a foreclose sale arising from prior recorded mortgage, unless the mortgagee explicitly consents to the receivership. Read more »

The Michigan Supreme Court issued only one order yesterday, denying a motion to waive fees because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees.

On July 27, 2012, the Court decided People v. Rabb, Case Nos. 143343 & 143344.  The Court partially reversed the June 21, 2011 Court of Appeals opinion and held that a Michigan State University (“MSU”) ordinance 15.05, which made it a misdemeanor offense to “disrupt the normal activity…of any person firm or agency while that person, firm or agency, is carrying out service activity or agreement for or with [Michigan State University],” was facially unconstitutional.  The Court affirmed the remainder of the Court of Appeals’ judgment which held that costs could not be taxed in criminal cases pursuant to MCR 7.101(O). Read more »

On July 27, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court decided Cedroni Associates, Inc. v. Tomblinson, Harburn Associates Architects & Planners, Inc., No. 142339.  In this opinion issued on the application, the Court reversed the November 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals and held that the lowest bidder on a school construction project has no reasonable expectation that it will be awarded the contract and therefore may not maintain a lawsuit for tortious interference. Read more »

In 2009 and 2010, Detroit Edison Co. self-implemented a rate increase while waiting for the Michigan Public Service Commission (“MPSC”) to act on its rate-increase request.  On January 11, 2010, the MPSC approved only a portion of Detroit Edison’s requested increase.  Detroit Edison proposed to refund its customers’ overpayments among customer classes based upon each customer class’s pro rata share of the total overpayment, by providing a discount on the January, 2010 billing cycle.  The Association of Business Advocating Tariff Equity (“ABATE”) objected because former primary customers of Detroit Edison, who paid the improperly high rates, would not receive a refund.  Despite the objection, the MPSC approved Detroit Edison’s plan, and the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed.  In re Appl of Detroit Edison Co. to Increase Rates, No. 302110.  Read more »

On July 26, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court denied two motions for rehearing.

On July 24, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court held the application for leave to appeal in the criminal case of People v. Ferguson, No. 145127, in abeyance because it believed that the cases of People v. Glenn, No. 144979, and People v. Hardy, No. 144327 pending before the Supreme Court may resolve issues in the present application.  Thus, the present application is held in abeyance pending the decisions in those cases.  

The Michigan Supreme Court also considered the application in the case of People v. Long, No. 144990  and remanded it to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.  Additionally, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision in the case of People v. Anderson, No. 143339, and remanded it to the Court of Appeals for consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in People v. Kolanek and People v. King regarding the Michigan Marihuana Act.  The Court also dismissed one criminal appeal based upon the death of the defendant, denied four motions for reconsideration, and denied one hundred and seventy-one applications for leave to appeal.

In the pending case of Stand Up for Democracy v. Secretary of State, a case that addresses whether a petition for a referendum about the emergency manager law meets font-size requirements, the Michigan Supreme Court granted a motion for immediate consideration, a motion to supplement the record, and a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief.