Summary
In Watkins, 489 Mich at 863, and People v Pullen, 489 Mich 864; 795 NW2d 147 (2011), our Supreme Court directed the parties to address "whether the omission of any reference to MRE 403 in MCL 768.27a (as compared to MCL 768.27b(1)), while mandating that evidence of other offenses 'is admissible for any purpose for which it is relevant,' would violate a defendant's due process right to a fair trial[.
Summary of this case from People v. McNeesOpinion
No. 142031.
March 30, 2011.
Court of Appeals No. 291841.
Leave to Appeal Granted March 30, 2011.
The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed (1) whether MCL 768.27a conflicts with MRE 404(b) and, if it does, (2) whether the statute prevails over the court rule, see McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15 (1999), and Const 1963, art 6, §§ 1 and 5, (3) whether the omission of any reference to MRE 403 in MCL 768.27a (as compared to MCL 768.27b(D), while mandating that evidence of other offenses "is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant," would violate a defendant's due process right to a fair trial and (4) whether MCL 768.27a interferes with the judicial power to ensure that a criminal defendant receives a fair trial, a power exclusively vested in the courts of this state under Const 1963, art 6, § 1.
The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.