By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Supreme Court this week will hear separate oral arguments on a pair of cases that include lengthy sentences for youth offenders.
On April 8 and April 9, beginning at 9:30 a.m., the Supreme Court is hearing arguments for several cases.
The first cases on Wednesday involve the legality of lengthy sentences imposed on offenders who were under 18 when they were convicted. During the last decade, the Michigan Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have implemented certain requirements for how minors should be sentenced.
On Wednesday, the court will first hear People v. Eads, (MSC Docket No. 168205). The case involves James Eads, who in 1992 was convicted of second-degree murder and felony-firearm for crimes he committed when he was 16 years old. He was sentenced as an adult to 50-75 years for second-degree murder.
The Court of Appeals, taking up the case on remand after first upholding the sentence, issued a published opinion, holding the 50-75 year sentence exceeded the constitutional standard for cruel or unusual punishment under People v. Stovall, the 2022 Supreme Court decision that found a parolable life sentence for defendant who committed second degree murder while a juvenile constitutes cruel or unusual punishment.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on if Stovall applies. It is also asking for arguments on if People v. Boykin (2022), which requires a court to consider mitigating circumstances of youth, applies.
Immediately after Eads, the Supreme Court will hear People v. Black (MSC Docket No. 168159), which involves the 1987 conviction of Donyelle Black for rape and murder committed when he was 15 years old. Parties in this case held a Miller hearing on the life without parole sentence under the U.S. Supreme Court decision. However, the defendant’s use of an expert witness led to the prosecution to seek a psychological evaluation, which the defendant said would violate his Fifth Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court is asking for arguments on whether the constitutional bar on compelled self-incrimination precludes a sentencing court from requiring the defendant to submit to a psychological examination by the prosecution’s expert as a precondition to admitting testimony from the defendant’s psychological expert at a resentencing hearing. And, if not, whether the sentencing court may require the defendant to make his or her decision on whether to submit to a compelled psychological examination before the prosecution has rested its case in chief. Finally, the court wants to hear whether the results of a compelled psychological examination are admissible during the prosecution’s case-in-chief or solely as rebuttal evidence.
On Wednesday, the court will also hear arguments in:
Abdulla et. al. v. Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company et. al. (MSC Docket No. 167532-3), which involves a commercial truck driver who was living with his parents at the time of an auto accident. The court, among other issues, will consider whether the plaintiff is entitled to personal protection insurance benefits as a relative of the named insured domiciled in the same household.
People v. Klungle (MSC 168010-1), which involves a dispute over the status of home ownership after the owner died without a will while a Richard Klungle, their grandchild, was living in it. The home went to the children who wanted to sell. The children wanted to sell the home and evicted Klungle, who eventually was arrested for trespassing but resisted arrest and threatened the officers. He was convicted after his attorney during closing arguments essentially admitted guilt on the trespassing charge, and sentenced to 2-15 years in prison. The court will hear arguments on whether trial counsel’s concession of the defendant’s guilt to trespassing deprived the defendant of his right to counsel and of the autonomy to decide that the objective of the defense is to assert his innocence.
On Thursday, April 9, the court will hear arguments in three other cases beginning at 9:30 a.m.:
People v. Alexander (MSC Docket No. 168009), which involves child abuse and torture. The court will consider whether the prosecution’s medical expert invaded the province of the jury by using the phrase “medical torture” to label her diagnosis of the child complainant.
Frownfelter v. Esurance et. al. (MSC Docket No. 168356-7), which involves the plaintiff who was 15-years-old when injured in an auto accident while driving with her father. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was with her mother 75% of the time and with her father 25% of the time under a custody arrangement. The dispute in the case is over what auto insurance policy should cover the 15-year-old’s injuries. The court will hear arguments on if the child was domiciled with her father at the time of the accident.
Ernest v. Brown et. al. (MSC Docket No. 168462), which is a medical malpractice case surrounding the timeliness of filing a wrongful death claim. The court will consider whether Waltz v. Wyse, (2004), correctly held that MCL 600.5856(c) does not toll the additional period permitted for filing wrongful-death actions provided in MCL 600.5852.
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Supreme Court this week will hear separate oral arguments on a pair of cases that include lengthy sentences for youth offenders.
On April 8 and April 9, beginning at 9:30 a.m., the Supreme Court is hearing arguments for several cases.
The first cases on Wednesday involve the legality of lengthy sentences imposed on offenders who were under 18 when they were convicted. During the last decade, the Michigan Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have implemented certain requirements for how minors should be sentenced.
On Wednesday, the court will first hear People v. Eads, (MSC Docket No. 168205). The case involves James Eads, who in 1992 was convicted of second-degree murder and felony-firearm for crimes he committed when he was 16 years old. He was sentenced as an adult to 50-75 years for second-degree murder.
The Court of Appeals, taking up the case on remand after first upholding the sentence, issued a published opinion, holding the 50-75 year sentence exceeded the constitutional standard for cruel or unusual punishment under People v. Stovall, the 2022 Supreme Court decision that found a parolable life sentence for defendant who committed second degree murder while a juvenile constitutes cruel or unusual punishment.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on if Stovall applies. It is also asking for arguments on if People v. Boykin (2022), which requires a court to consider mitigating circumstances of youth, applies.
Immediately after Eads, the Supreme Court will hear People v. Black (MSC Docket No. 168159), which involves the 1987 conviction of Donyelle Black for rape and murder committed when he was 15 years old. Parties in this case held a Miller hearing on the life without parole sentence under the U.S. Supreme Court decision. However, the defendant’s use of an expert witness led to the prosecution to seek a psychological evaluation, which the defendant said would violate his Fifth Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court is asking for arguments on whether the constitutional bar on compelled self-incrimination precludes a sentencing court from requiring the defendant to submit to a psychological examination by the prosecution’s expert as a precondition to admitting testimony from the defendant’s psychological expert at a resentencing hearing. And, if not, whether the sentencing court may require the defendant to make his or her decision on whether to submit to a compelled psychological examination before the prosecution has rested its case in chief. Finally, the court wants to hear whether the results of a compelled psychological examination are admissible during the prosecution’s case-in-chief or solely as rebuttal evidence.
On Wednesday, the court will also hear arguments in:
Abdulla et. al. v. Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company et. al. (MSC Docket No. 167532-3), which involves a commercial truck driver who was living with his parents at the time of an auto accident. The court, among other issues, will consider whether the plaintiff is entitled to personal protection insurance benefits as a relative of the named insured domiciled in the same household.
People v. Klungle (MSC 168010-1), which involves a dispute over the status of home ownership after the owner died without a will while a Richard Klungle, their grandchild, was living in it. The home went to the children who wanted to sell. The children wanted to sell the home and evicted Klungle, who eventually was arrested for trespassing but resisted arrest and threatened the officers. He was convicted after his attorney during closing arguments essentially admitted guilt on the trespassing charge, and sentenced to 2-15 years in prison. The court will hear arguments on whether trial counsel’s concession of the defendant’s guilt to trespassing deprived the defendant of his right to counsel and of the autonomy to decide that the objective of the defense is to assert his innocence.
On Thursday, April 9, the court will hear arguments in three other cases beginning at 9:30 a.m.:
People v. Alexander (MSC Docket No. 168009), which involves child abuse and torture. The court will consider whether the prosecution’s medical expert invaded the province of the jury by using the phrase “medical torture” to label her diagnosis of the child complainant.
Frownfelter v. Esurance et. al. (MSC Docket No. 168356-7), which involves the plaintiff who was 15-years-old when injured in an auto accident while driving with her father. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was with her mother 75% of the time and with her father 25% of the time under a custody arrangement. The dispute in the case is over what auto insurance policy should cover the 15-year-old’s injuries. The court will hear arguments on if the child was domiciled with her father at the time of the accident.
Ernest v. Brown et. al. (MSC Docket No. 168462), which is a medical malpractice case surrounding the timeliness of filing a wrongful death claim. The court will consider whether Waltz v. Wyse, (2004), correctly held that MCL 600.5856(c) does not toll the additional period permitted for filing wrongful-death actions provided in MCL 600.5852.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
