People v. Swain
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- People of Michigan v. Anthony Wayne Hubbard (Mich. Ct. App. 2023)
- People of Michigan v. Matthew Lee Robinson (Mich. Ct. App. 2019)
- People v. Robinson (Mich. 2018)
- People of Michigan v. Earl Allen Northrop Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2025)
- 20240201_C364289_29_364289.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024)
- 20231130_C362945_32_362945.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023)
- People of Michigan v. Anthony Wayne Hubbard (Mich. 2021)
- People of Michigan v. Matthew Lee Robinson (Mich. 2018)
- People of Michigan v. Ledura Watkins (Mich. 2016)
- People of Michigan v. Ledura Watkins (Mich. 2016)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we reverse the February 5, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals and we remand this case to the Calhoun Circuit Court for proceedings consistent with its judgment ordering a new trial. The Court of Appeals erred in applying People v Cress, 468 Mich 678 (2003), to an analysis of a successive motion filed pursuant to MCR 6.502(G)(2). Cress does not apply to the procedural threshold of MCR 6.502(G)(2), as the plain text of the court rule does not require that a defendant satisfy all elements of the test. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to give proper deference to the specific findings of the trial court that the defendant was entitled to a new trial. The defendant provided “a claim of new *921 evidence that was not discovered before the first” motion for relief from judgment, MCR 6.502(G)(2), and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial on the facts of this case. In light of this disposition, we decline to address the other issues presented in our order granting leave to appeal. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.