Operating While Intoxicated.
Defendant was arrested for suspected operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor. Jury Selection was conducted and the parties choose a jury trial date. The Prosecutor filed a Motion for Discovery and improperly cited the District Court to MCL 767.94a as authority for the Court to grant discovery of Defendant’s witnesses and exhibits to be introduced at trial.
Abood Law Firm responded to the People’s Motion by citing Supreme Court authority stating that MCR 6.201, not MCL 767.94a, controlled discovery in misdemeanor cases. Relying on the People’s wrong legal authority, the District Court, from the bench, ruled that Defendant was required to comply with the People’s discovery requests, specifically stating on the record that to the extent that there is a conflict between MCL 767.94a and MCR 6.201, that MCL 767.94a governed.
The District Court ordered that Defendant comply with MCL 767.94a and produce what the statute required. Abood Law Firm then filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings in District Court pending the outcome of an appeal of the Discovery Order, which was denied. Abood Law Firm filed an Application for Leave to Appeal, along with a Motion for Expedited Consideration, of both the District Court’s Discovery Order and its denial of Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings. The Circuit Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Immediate Consideration, but denied Defendant’s Application for Leave to Appeal.
At trial, the People made an Oral Motion to deny Defendant the right to call witnesses or produce exhibits, which was granted. Trial proceeded without Defendant being able to produce a single exhibit or witness, the jury ultimately returned a verdict of not guilty on the charged offense of Operating While Intoxicated, but guilty of Operating While Impaired.
Shortly thereafter, Abood Law Firm filed a motion for a new trial. A hearing for this motion, the District Court opined that it had erroneously ordered discovery and granted a new trial for Defendant. The Prosecutor sought leave to appeal to circuit court, which was granted. The Circuit Court heard oral arguments, and thereafter, directed the parties to submit a post argument memorandum within 14 days.
The Circuit Court ultimately determined that “the District Court did not have authority to order discovery in defendant’s misdemeanor case” and that “the sanction imposed by the District Court which precluded defendant from offering any evidence was not warranted . . . because the order of discovery was not valid. The circuit court concluded, “[t]herefore, the District Court was right to recognize its error and order a new trial.”
The People have filed an Application for Leave to Appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Abood Law Firm filed its response and continues to work hard to ensure that our client not only gets a trial, but a fair trial as guaranteed to him by the Constitution.
Defendant was arrested for suspected operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor. Jury Selection was conducted and the parties choose a jury trial date. The Prosecutor filed a Motion for Discovery and improperly cited the District Court to MCL 767.94a as authority for the Court to grant discovery of Defendant’s witnesses and exhibits to be introduced at trial.
Abood Law Firm responded to the People’s Motion by citing Supreme Court authority stating that MCR 6.201, not MCL 767.94a, controlled discovery in misdemeanor cases. Relying on the People’s wrong legal authority, the District Court, from the bench, ruled that Defendant was required to comply with the People’s discovery requests, specifically stating on the record that to the extent that there is a conflict between MCL 767.94a and MCR 6.201, that MCL 767.94a governed.
The District Court ordered that Defendant comply with MCL 767.94a and produce what the statute required. Abood Law Firm then filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Proceedings in District Court pending the outcome of an appeal of the Discovery Order, which was denied. Abood Law Firm filed an Application for Leave to Appeal, along with a Motion for Expedited Consideration, of both the District Court’s Discovery Order and its denial of Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings. The Circuit Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Immediate Consideration, but denied Defendant’s Application for Leave to Appeal.
At trial, the People made an Oral Motion to deny Defendant the right to call witnesses or produce exhibits, which was granted. Trial proceeded without Defendant being able to produce a single exhibit or witness, the jury ultimately returned a verdict of not guilty on the charged offense of Operating While Intoxicated, but guilty of Operating While Impaired.
Shortly thereafter, Abood Law Firm filed a motion for a new trial. A hearing for this motion, the District Court opined that it had erroneously ordered discovery and granted a new trial for Defendant. The Prosecutor sought leave to appeal to circuit court, which was granted. The Circuit Court heard oral arguments, and thereafter, directed the parties to submit a post argument memorandum within 14 days.
The Circuit Court ultimately determined that “the District Court did not have authority to order discovery in defendant’s misdemeanor case” and that “the sanction imposed by the District Court which precluded defendant from offering any evidence was not warranted . . . because the order of discovery was not valid. The circuit court concluded, “[t]herefore, the District Court was right to recognize its error and order a new trial.”
The People have filed an Application for Leave to Appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Abood Law Firm filed its response and continues to work hard to ensure that our client not only gets a trial, but a fair trial as guaranteed to him by the Constitution.
Labels: criminal
