Court Opinion

ID: 9692856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:09:00.341444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:39.015648
License: Public Domain

Riley, C.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with §§ i-iv of Justice Levin’s opinion. I disagree with § v because Justice Levin has employed the similar-acts analysis of People v Golochowicz, 413 Mich 298; 319 NW2d 518 (1982), to determine the admissibility of defendant’s own statement. Under Michigan Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), a statement is excluded from the definition of hearsay if it is "offered against a party and is . . . his own statement . . . .’’As such, assuming the statement to be relevant, and that none of the factors contained in MRE 403 or any other evidentiary objections are present, the statement is admissible. A similar-acts analysis is simply unnecessary in determining the admissibility of a party admission.