Mich. R. Evid. 410

As amended through September 25, 2024
Rule 410 - Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements
(a) Prohibited Uses. In a civil or criminal case, evidence of the following is not admissible against the defendant who made the plea or participated in the plea discussions:
(1) a guilty plea that was later withdrawn or vacated;
(2) a nolo contendere plea - except that, to the extent that evidence of a guilty plea would be admissible, evidence of a nolo contendere plea to a criminal charge may be admitted in a civil proceeding to defend against a claim asserted by the person who entered the plea;
(3) a statement made during a proceeding on either of those pleas under MCR 6.302 or MCR 6.310, a comparable state procedure, or Fed R Crim P 11; or
(4) a statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority if the discussions did not result in a guilty plea or they resulted in a later-withdrawn or vacated guilty plea.
(b) Exceptions. The court may admit a statement described in subrule (a)(3) or (4):
(1) in any proceeding in which another statement made during the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced, if in fairness the statements ought to be considered together; or
(2) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement, if the defendant made the statement under oath, on the record, and with counsel present.

Mich. R. Evid. 410

Amended March 22, 2023, effective 5/1/2023; amended September 20, 2023, effective 1/1/2024.

Staff Comment (ADM File No. 2020-29): The amendment in this file adds vacated pleas to the list of guilty pleas that may not be used against defendant. In addition, the amendment adds a reference to MCR 6.310 in subsection (3), which makes inadmissible statements made during a proceeding on defendant's motion to withdraw his or her plea and statements made during the prosecution's motion to vacate a plea for failure to comply with the terms of a plea agreement.

The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court. In addition, adoption of an amendment in no way reflects a substantive determination by this Court.