Skip to main content
A Better Partnership

April 2016

Apr 2016
April 27, 2016

Conviction for armed robbery does not require victim to have reasonable belief that defendant possesses weapon

In People v. Henry, No. 325144, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a conviction for armed robbery does not require the victim to have a reasonable belief that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon.  Defendant entered a fast-food restaurant and demanded all of the money in the register while his hands were in the pocket of his hoodie.  The victim testified that Defendant’s hands were bulging forward, but was unsure whether Defendant had a weapon.  Defendant was convicted by a jury of armed robbery, and he appealed claiming that there was insufficient evidence that the victim had a reasonable belief that he possessed a dangerous weapon.

Apr 2016
April 22, 2016

Defendant not guilty of home invasion for breaking into room of a house where defendant was lawfully present.

In People v. Bush, No. 326658, the Michigan Court of Appeals reviewed whether the term “dwelling” as used in MCL 750.110a, the home invasion statute, is meant to separately include each of the internal components of the dwelling in addition to the exterior or “envelope” of the “dwelling.”  The Court concluded that the plain language of the statute indicates that “dwelling” only refers to the whole structure or shelter, and therefore, a person could not be convicted of home invasion for breaking into an inner room of a dwelling if that person was already lawfully present in the dwelling.

Apr 2016
April 21, 2016

A consecutive sentence cannot be ordered for an individual on federal supervised release as opposed to parole

In People v. Clark, No. 322852, defendant appealed by leave granted a judgment sentencing him to 38 months to 240 months’ imprisonment consecutive to his term of federal supervised release that defendant was serving.  Defendant argued that he was not subject to consecutive sentencing because he was not on “parole” at the time the offense was committed.  The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed and remanded for sentencing.

Apr 2016
April 21, 2016

COA – Where Court of Appeals previously ruled that there was sufficient evidence of causation to go to a jury, that issue could not be re-litigated on remand

In the consolidated appeal of Brownlow v. McCall Enterprises, Inc., Nos. 325843 and 326903, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that where the Court of Appeals previously ruled that there was sufficient evidence of causation to go to a jury, the law of the case doctrine precluded the defendant from relitigating the issue of causation in a subsequent motion for summary disposition after remand. 

Displaying results 7-12 (of 27)
 |<  <  1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5  >  >| 

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.



+ -