Skip to main content
A Better Partnership

February 2015

Feb 2015
February 08, 2015

MSC grants mini-oral argument on whether trial court’s failure to give jury instruction on effect of character evidence is reversible error

In People v. Lyles, No. 150040, the Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument to consider an application for leave to appeal where the issue is whether a trial court’s failure to a give a portion of a jury instruction on the importance and effect of character evidence was outcome determinative. Here, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. At trial, the court did not read the following portion of Michigan Criminal Jury Instruction 5.8a(1): “[e]vidence of good character alone may sometimes create a reasonable doubt in your mind and lead you to find the defendant not guilty.” On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant was entitled to the entire instruction and that the error required reversal because failure to read the entire instruction deprived the defendant of the full benefit of his character evidence. The Michigan Supreme Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs on whether it was more likely than not that the failure to give the character evidence instruction properly was outcome determinative.

Feb 2015
February 04, 2015

COA holds that the Michigan Trust Code’s statute of limitations provision applies retroactively so long as an individual’s rights have not been impaired

In the consolidated case, In re Gerald L. Pollack Trust, No. 309796, the Court of Appeals held, among other things, that the Michigan Trust Code’s (MTC) statute of limitations provision, codified under MCL 700.7604(1), applies retroactively to trusts drafted prior to the effective date of the MTC so long as the full limitations period affords a party a reasonable time to file suit.  Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant trustee summary disposition on certain claims raised by plaintiff challenging his father’s estate because the plaintiff had filed them after the limitations period ended.

Displaying results 7-12 (of 12)
 |<  <  1 - 2 >  >|

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.



+ -