Source: http://www.wnj.com/Blogs/Appellate/November-2013
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:27:58+00:00

Document:
In King v. Oakland County Prosecutor, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial court followed proper procedures and ruled with sufficient specificity when it denied a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request seeking information about a 36-year-old murder.
The Court of Appeals reversed a conviction and ordered a new trial where the jurors saw the defendant in shackles in a case that came down to a credibility contest.
Attorney General Bill Schuette announced today that he has appointed Aaron Lindstrom to succeed John Bursch as the next Solicitor General for Michigan, effective December 7, 2013. By statute, the Attorney General may appoint a Solicitor General to represent the State of Michigan in the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Lindstrom left Warner Norcross & Judd LLP to join Michigan's Solicitor General Bureau in 2012. John Bursch will now return to Warner Norcross & Judd after nearly three years of distinguished service as Michigan's 10th Solicitor General, including eight oral arguments in the United States Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeals has recognized that excluding evidence defendant had a valid concealed pistol license (“CPL”) during his trial for felony-firearm, was an error so severe that the defendant was entitled to a new trial. In the consolidated cases of People v. Powell, defendant was charged with felony-firearm and possession with intent to deliver marijuana.
In People v. Matzke, the Court of Appeals affirmed that a trial court may rely on hearsay evidence to establish a restitution award, during the sentencing phase of a criminal matter. Defendant was convicted of larceny after taking a gas-oil separator from the victim’s property and subsequently damaged the equipment when returning it to the victim.
In People v. Hartwick, the Court of Appeals continued to chip away at the protections available to qualified patients and caregivers under § 4 and § 8 of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). Although defendant was a registered medical marijuana patient and caregiver, he was not entitled to the presumption of immunity under § 4 because he could not identify his patients’ medical conditions or physicians, and he did not know the amount of marijuana reasonably required for each patient’s treatment. For the same reasons, defendant was also not entitled to raise the affirmative defense in § 8. Hartwick continues the trend of Michigan courts reading the defenses and immunities of the MMMA narrowly.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 § 8
 § 4
 § 8