Ann Arbor Criminal Defense Blog

Michigan Court Explains the Burden of Proof in Probation Revocation Hearings

Published on: June 9, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

It is generally understood that the prosecution must establish a criminal defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. In determining whether a person violated the terms of supervised release, however, the prosecution faces a lesser burden of proof. In a recent ruling, a Michigan court discussed what evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that supervised release should be revoked due to a violation in a case in which the defendant appealed the trial court’s ruling. If you are accused of violating the conditions of your supervised release, it is in your best interest to speak to a Michigan criminal defense attorney about your options.

The Alleged Violations

It is alleged that the defendant pleaded guilty to numerous crimes in 2015, for which he was sentenced to sixty months in prison, followed by a three-year term of supervised release. He was released from prison in May 2019, and his term of supervised release began. In December 2019, a probation officer filed a petition for revocation of the defendant’s supervised release, alleging he committed six different violations, one of which was an assault. He was then charged with robbery and weapons crimes, which prompted the probation officer to amend the petition to include a seventh violation arising out of those offenses.

It is reported that the court held a two-day hearing, during which the court relied in part on the testimony of eyewitnesses who identified the defendant at the scene of the crime and in court to establish the defendant’s violation. The court granted the petition, and the defendant appealed. Continue Reading ›

Michigan Court Discusses Prosecutorial Misconduct in Criminal Trials

Published on: May 28, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

In criminal proceedings, the prosecution’s aim is to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors must comply with the law, however, and if they engage in misconduct during a trial, it might constitute grounds for arguing a conviction or sentence is unlawful. Recently, a Michigan court discussed the standard of review for claims that prosecutorial misconduct warrants relief in a case in which the defendant filed a petition of habeas corpus following his conviction for criminal sexual conduct. If you are charged with a sex crime, it is in your best interest to meet with a skilled Michigan criminal defense lawyer to discuss your options.

History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with engaging in acts of sexual penetration with his minor daughter. He was tried for first-degree criminal sexual misconduct, and during the trial, the prosecutor commented on the defendant’s lifestyle and romantic encounters. The jury convicted the defendant, after which he appealed, arguing in part that the prosecutor’s comments were improper and unduly prejudicial, which warranted a new trial.

It is reported that the appellate court rejected the defendant’s arguments and affirmed his conviction, after which he filed a petition of habeas corpus, asserting that the appellate court applied the incorrect standard for adjudicating claims of prosecutorial misconduct. Continue Reading ›

Michigan Court Explains Lesser Included Offenses in Assault Cases

Published on: May 15, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

In Michigan, assault crimes range in severity, and the offense a defendant is charged with depends on the circumstances surrounding the alleged attack. Many assault crimes require the State to prove the defendant’s intent at the time the offense was committed, and if it cannot, the defendant may be able to argue that a lesser charge is appropriate. Recently, a Michigan court issued an opinion explaining jury instructions for lesser included offenses in assault cases, in a matter in which it ultimately determined that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury per the defendant’s request. If you are charged with an assault crime, it is prudent to meet with a seasoned Michigan criminal defense lawyer to assess your potential defenses.

Procedural History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with assault with intent to do great bodily harm. Prior to trial, he filed a motion asking the court to instruct the jury on the crime of assault and battery on the grounds that it was a lesser-included offense of assault with intent to do great bodily harm. He further asserted that a rational view of the evidence supported the instruction.

It is reported that during the oral argument the court held on the motion, the prosecution conceded that assault and battery was a lesser included offense of assault with intent to do great bodily harm but objected to the instruction regardless on the basis that the intent element of the charged offense was not disputed, as the defense argued that no assault occurred. The court denied the defendant’s motion, and he was convicted as charged. The defendant appealed, but his conviction was upheld. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Michigan. Continue Reading ›

Michigan Court Explains the Evidence Needed to Obtain a Warrant

Published on: May 8, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

Typically, when the police believe that someone is trafficking narcotics, they will conduct a thorough investigation, which often includes obtaining a warrant to search the individual’s home or vehicle. The police must have reasonable suspicion that a person is engaging in criminal activity to obtain a warrant, however, and if they do not, the search conducted under the warrant may be deemed unconstitutional. In a recent Michigan opinion, a court discussed what constitutes sufficient grounds to grant a warrant in a case in which the defendant was charged with several drug crimes. If you are accused of a drug offense, it is advisable to speak to a trusted Michigan criminal defense lawyer about your options.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the police obtained a warrant to search the defendant’s home and vehicle based on the belief that he was selling drugs. Following the investigation, the State charged the defendant with multiple drug and weapons crimes. He then moved to suppress the evidence obtained via the search warrant on the grounds that it was overly broad and did not contain adequate evidence to establish probable cause. The court granted the motion and dismissed the charges against the defendant. The State subsequently appealed, arguing that the trial court applied an improper standard in evaluating whether the warrant should have been granted.

Probable Cause Sufficient to Justify a Search Warrant

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures and states that warrants will not be issued without probable cause, supported by affidavits that describe in detail the place that will be searched and the things that will be seized. The Michigan Constitution contains a similar provision that has been construed as providing the same protections as the Fourth Amendment. Continue Reading ›

Michigan Court Discusses the Right to Offer a Defense in Criminal Trials

Published on: April 21, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

It is generally known that people who are charged with crimes cannot be forced to testify in their own defense. Many people are unaware, though, that although defendants cannot be compelled to defend themselves against the prosecutions’ allegations, they do have a constitutional right to present a defense, and if this right is violated, it may constitute grounds for a new trial. In a recent opinion issued in an assault case, a Michigan court discussed what an appellate court evaluates to determine whether a trial court violated a defendant’s right to present a defense. If you are accused of assault, you should meet with a Michigan criminal defense attorney to discuss your options.

The Defendant’s Arrest and Trial

It is reported that the defendant was charged with numerous assault crimes following an altercation with his girlfriend and aunt. The defendant admitted that there was an argument but asserted that his aunt and girlfriend conspired to fabricate allegations against him. His aunt, however, stated that he attempted to stab her, gouged her face, and pointed a BB gun at her head, and his girlfriend testified that the defendant threw her to the ground and threatened her with a knife. A jury ultimately found the defendant guilty as charged. He appealed, arguing in part that the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a defense by excluding testimony regarding other acts.

The Right to Present a Defense

Upon reviewing the evidence, the appellate court denied the defendant’s appeal. The court explained that in order to preserve the issue of whether a trial court’s evidentiary ruling denied a defendant the right to offer a defense, the defendant has to raise the issue before the trial court. In the subject case, the defendant failed to argue at trial that the testimony in question was admissible under the Michigan Rules of Evidence or that the failure to admit such testimony denied him of the right to set forth a defense. Continue Reading ›

Michigan Court Explains Evidence Needed to Establish Guilt in a Theft Case

Published on: April 14, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

Many theft crimes involve an element of intent. In other words, in order for the State to prove the defendant’s guilt, it must show that the defendant willfully took the property of another person or entity. In a recent opinion, a Michigan court explained the evidence needed to prove a defendant committed theft from an Indian gaming establishment, which in the case in question was charged as a misdemeanor crime. If you are charged with a theft crime, it is in your best interest to speak to a knowledgeable Michigan criminal defense attorney regarding your rights.

The Charges Against the Defendant

It is reported that the defendants were charged with theft from an Indian gaming establishment, and aiding and abetting such theft, in violation of federal law. The defendants entered into a stipulation with the prosecution in which they agreed that each element of the alleged offenses had been satisfied except for one. Thus, the prosecution merely had to establish that the defendants stole funds, money, or property that belonged to an Indian gaming establishment. The matter ultimately proceeded to a bench trial, after which the court concluded that the prosecution had proven the defendants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence Needed to Establish Guilt in a Theft Case

Under the applicable law, anyone that takes and carries away or willfully misapplies any property or money that belongs to an establishment licensed or operated by an Indian tribe that is valued at $1,000 or less can be fined or imprisoned. As such, to convict a person of theft from an Indian gaming establishment, the Government must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant willfully took or misapplied property or money that belonged to an Indian establishment with the intent to steal. Continue Reading ›

Michigan Court Discusses Sentence Reductions for Drug Crimes

Published on: April 7, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

Historically, people convicted of some drug crimes faced harsher penalties than those convicted of others. In an effort to remedy this disparity, Congress passed a law known as the First Step Act that allowed for sentence reductions when certain factors were met. Recently, in an opinion delivered in a drug offense case, a Michigan court explained what a defendant must show to demonstrate eligibility for a reduced sentence under the First Step Act. If you are charged with a drug crime, you could face significant penalties, and it is prudent to meet with a skillful Michigan criminal defense attorney to assess your options.

The Defendant’s Conviction and Sentencing

It is reported that the defendant was convicted of conspiracy with the intent to distribute controlled substances, using a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, tax evasion, possessing cocaine with an intent to distribute, and engaging in a continuous criminal enterprise in the late 1980s. He was sentenced to a term of life in prison and five years of supervised release. He appealed, and his conviction for conspiracy was vacated, and his sentence was reduced. He then sought a further reduction of his sentence under the First Step Act.

Eligibility for a Reduced Sentence under the First Step Act

At the time the defendant was sentenced, crimes involving crack cocaine were treated more harshly than those related to powder cocaine. To address this sentencing disparity, in 2010, Congress issued the Fair Sentencing Act. The provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act were not retroactive; however, so in 2018 Congress passed the First Step Act. Continue Reading ›

Michigan Court Explains Protections Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure

Published on: March 28, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

Generally, police officers who are investigating a crime need a warrant to search a defendant. There are exceptions, though, such as in cases in which an officer reasonably suspects that a person is committing a crime. In such instances, an investigatory stop may be justified. Recently, a Michigan court discussed the right against unreasonable search and seizure in a matter in which the defendant was charged with numerous firearms and drug offenses. If you are accused of committing a crime, you should consult a trusted Michigan criminal defense attorney promptly to discuss your options.

The Defendant’s Arrest

Allegedly, the defendant was arrested at a gas station for carrying a concealed gun without a license. Apparently, an officer saw the gun in the defendant’s waistband with the handle protruding from his coat. The officer asked the defendant if he had a license to carry the gun, to which he replied he did not. The officer then confiscated the gun and arrested the defendant, after which it was discovered he had heroin in his possession as well.

It is reported that the defendant was charged with numerous weapons crimes and possession of heroin. He moved to suppress the evidence found during his arrest on the grounds that it was the product of an illegal search and seizure. Specifically, he argued the gun was not concealed but was being carried in accordance with the State’s open carry law. The court granted the defendant’s motion, and the State appealed. Continue Reading ›

Michigan Court Discusses Grounds for Compassionate Release

Published on: March 21, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted most facets of society, including those individuals that are currently incarcerated. Many people in prison have a higher risk of suffering severe illness due to COVID-19 and are justifiably concerned regarding the threats posed by the virus. Some individuals may be eligible for compassionate release, but demonstrating such release is warranted is difficult, as noted in a recent Michigan opinion issued in a case in which the defendant was convicted of a weapons offense. If you are charged with a criminal offense, it is prudent to meet with a seasoned Michigan criminal defense attorney as soon as possible to determine your options for seeking a favorable result.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of federal law. He had an extensive history of criminal convictions, including felony convictions for assault and delivery and possession of drugs. He pleaded guilty to the firearms charge and was sentenced to 46 months in prison. He began serving his sentence in January 2019. The defendant filed two motions for compassionate release. He withdrew the first, and the second was denied. He then filed a third motion for compassionate release, which was also denied.

Grounds for Compassionate Release

Pursuant to the First Step Act, a district court can consider motions filed by incarcerated defendants asking for reductions in their sentences. In determining whether to grant a compassionate release motion, a court has to engage in a three-part analysis. First, it must find that compelling and extraordinary reasons warrant a reduced sentence. The court must then ensure that the reduction complies with the applicable policy statements issued by the sentencing commission. Finally, the court must weigh all relevant statutory sentencing factors. If the court finds that each requirement is met, it may reduce a prison sentence but is not required to do so. Continue Reading ›

Court Explains Admissibility of Evidence of Other Acts in Michigan Criminal Matters

Published on: March 14, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

While gun ownership is generally lawful, people who have been convicted of felonies often lose their right to own weapons and can be charged with criminal offenses if guns are found in their possession. In many cases, though, the police will not have direct evidence of possession of a firearm but will have to rely on circumstantial evidence to establish a defendant’s guilt. Although circumstantial evidence is generally admissible, evidence of other wrongful acts usually is not. Recently, a Michigan court issued a ruling explaining the admissibility of other acts evidence in a case in which the defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. If you are charged with a weapons offense, it is in your best interest to meet with a dedicated Michigan criminal defense lawyer to discuss what evidence the prosecution may put forth.

The Underlying Incidents and Defendant’s Conviction

It is reported that the defendant sent the victim threatening text messages, including a picture of an assault rifle. Later that day, the defendant went to a party hosted by the victim and got into a verbal altercation with her before pointing a gun at her head. He left the party, but that evening he became involved in a high-speed chase with the victim and fired shots at her vehicle. The victim then called the police and reported the defendant shot at her.

Allegedly, the defendant was arrested a week later. The police searched his home and found an assault rifle. He was charged with multiple crimes, including possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony. The defendant appealed, arguing in part that the prosecution improperly relied on evidence of other acts to establish his guilt. Continue Reading ›