On Friday, September 11, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court disposed of 161 cases.' The Court denied leave to appeal in 111 cases, denied reconsideration in 12 cases, and denied rehearing in 4 cases, including In re Servaas.' ' The Court denied one motion for waiver of fees and' denied one motion to strike.' The Court remanded People v. Ruban,' People v. McIntosh, and Whitman v. Galien Township' ' to the Court of Appeals for consideration as' on leave granted.' The Court remanded People v. Earls to the Court of Appeals to reinstate the defendant's appeal after the Court of Appeals mistakenly dismissed the appeal for defendant's failure to timely file an appeal briefƒ''the date stamp on the brief showed that the brief was timely filed.
The Court signalled interest in revisiting the Interstate Agreement on Detainers' by ordering the Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney to' respond to the defendant's application for leave to appeal in' People v. Davis.
The Court also granted' leave to appeal in People v. Houthoofd' regarding' how venue is determined in criminal cases.' ' Houthoofd' is' summarized after the jump.' In' Houthoofd, the defendant was convicted of obtaining property by false pretenses,' witness intimidation, and solicitation to commit murder.' ' The Court of Appeals held that although Houthoofd and the detective witness whom he attempted to intimidate were not in Saginaw County when Houthoofd called the detective, the effect of the intimidation was directed toward the case against Houthoofd pending in Saginaw County Circuit Court.' Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that venue in Saginaw County was proper on the witness intimidation charge.' But because the requisite acts of Houthoofd's solicitation to commit murder occurred outside Saginaw County, the Court of Appeals held that venue was not proper in Saginaw County for that charge.' The Court of Appeals upheld Houthoofd's conviction for witness intimidation but reversed his conviction for solicitation to commit murder.' The Court of Appeals opinion is here.' The parties' filed cross applications for leave to appeal.' The Michigan Supreme Court ordered the parties to address whether venue was proper on both the witness intimidation and solicitation to commit murder charges in Saginaw County, and if Houthoofd is entitled to a new trial on his convictions for false pretenses and witness intimidation if his conviction for solicitation to commit murder is not reinstated.' Finally, the Court ordered the parties to address what effect, if any, courts should afford' Houthoofd's pre-trial request to have the three charges tried together.