Summary of Applications / Oral Argument on Applications Granted - February 2023

Mini-Oral Argument on Application Granted
People v Roosevelt Johnson, MSC No. 164694 (COA No. 358038), MOAA granted December 21, 2022

• OV 3/Prophylactic Treatment

The Court directed the parties to address whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the assignment of 10 points to Offense Variable 3, MCL 777.33 for prophylactic treatment following a sexual assault, and in particular whether the holding in People v Barnes, 332 Mich App 494, 500 (2020), lv den 507 Mich 893 (2021), conflicts with the holding in People v Rosa, 322 Mich App 726, lv den 502 Mich 904 (2018). 

People v Richard Gerald Musselman, MSC No. 163290 (COA No. 351700), MOAA granted December 21, 2022 

• Remote vs Current Rehabilitation Evidence in Resentencing

The Court directed the parties to address whether the resentencing court abused its discretion in the relative value it placed on the evidence of the appellant’s character and behavior before and during the crime, which took place in 1980, in light of the more recent evidence regarding his rehabilitation.

People v Jessica Lynn Hurley, MSC No. 164608 (COA No. 349640), MOAA granted December 22, 2022

• Juror Misconduct / Verdict Impeachment

The Court directed the parties to address: (1) whether a verdict may be impeached based on juror misconduct if the misconduct occurred prior to the jury’s deliberative process, see People v Budzyn, 456 Mich 77 (1997); and (2) whether there may be cases of “juror bias so extreme that, almost by definition, the jury trial right has been abridged,” see Warger v Shauers, 574 US 40 (2014), and if so, whether that exception applies to the facts of this case? 

People v Ronald Scott, MSC No. 164790 (COA No. 336815), MOAA granted January 13, 2023

• Effect of Automatic Stay During Pendency of Appeal

The Court directed the parties to address whether the decision in People v Washington, 508 Mich 107 (2021), applies to the interlocutory appeal at issue in this case. In addressing that question, the Court directed the parties to specifically address: (1) whether there was an automatic stay in effect during the pendency of defendant’s application for leave to appeal in this Court, see MCR 2.614(D), MCR 6.126, MCR 7.205(E)(3), MCR 7.208(A), MCR 7.209(A)(1), MCR 7.215(F)(1)(a), and MCR 7.305(C)(6)(a); (2) whether any stay prevented the trial court from holding trial or whether it only prevented action related to the non-final order challenged in the prosecutor’s interlocutory appeal, see Alice L v Dusek, 492 F3d 563, 564-565 (CA 5, 2007); Quick-Sav Food Stores, Ltd v Estate of Mattis, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 19, 2010 (Docket No. 285414), pp 2-3, citing 5 Am Jur 2d, Appellate Review, § 387, p 174; and (3) whether any stay deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction or whether the failure to comply with that stay was a procedural error subject to review for harmlessness. 

by John Zevalking
Associate Editor