Opinion
SC: 166126 COA: 365128
10-18-2023
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamarion Demario RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Order
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the June 27, 2023 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Cavanagh, J. (dissenting). Rather than deny leave to appeal, I would stay defendant's upcoming trial and remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. I am concerned that the trial court may have improperly excluded from defendant's trial admissible evidence that is relevant to his self-defense claim on the basis of its personal view that this evidence is unpersuasive. While trial courts play an important gatekeeping function in excluding evidence that would render a trial unfair, the jury as fact-finder is primarily entrusted to assess the weight and sufficiency of evidence. Courts should be careful not to usurp that role. This principle has even greater force where a criminal defendant exercises their constitutional right to a jury trial and seeks to present evidence to that jury. I would not require defendant to go to trial without potentially admissible evidence, thereby undermining his ability to present a complete defense. Instead, I would stay trial and remand to the Court of Appeals for interlocutory review.
See, e.g., People v Posey , 512 Mich ––––, 994 N.W.2d 520 (2023).
See, e.g., People v Oros , 502 Mich. 229, 239, 917 N.W.2d 559 (2018).
See People v Kowalski , 492 Mich. 106, 138-139, 821 N.W.2d 14 (2012) (opinion by M. B. Kelly , J.) (noting that "[c]riminal defendants have a constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.") (quotation marks and citation omitted).
I note that the Court of Appeals denied defendant's application for leave to appeal "for failure to persuade the Court of the need for immediate appellate review," so he is not precluded from raising this issue on direct appeal if he is convicted. See Rott v Rott , 508 Mich. 274, 289, 972 N.W.2d 789 (2021).
Bolden, J., joins the statement of Cavanagh, J.