People v. Duncan

104 Citing cases

  1. People v. Vaughn

    491 Mich. 642 (Mich. 2012)   Cited 856 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Vaughn, our Supreme Court characterized Duncan as standing for the proposition that a structural error satisfied the third prong of the Carines plain-error test.

    For instance, the Court has repeatedly withheld judgment on whether a structural error automatically satisfies the third prong of plain-error analysis, Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 140, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009), implying that structural errors do not entirely defy plain-error analysis, even if they do defy harmless-error analysis. Nor does this Court's opinion in People v. Duncan, 462 Mich. 47, 610 N.W.2d 551 (2000), compel the rule that the concurring justice would adopt. While Duncan acknowledged that “[s]tructural errors ... are intrinsically harmful,” id. at 51, 610 N.W.2d 551, this statement is consistent with applying our forfeiture rules because we explicitly follow Duncan when applying the third Carines prong, as discussed later in this opinion, and Duncan does not expressly state that structural errors defy application of plain-error analysis.

  2. People v. Traver

    502 Mich. 23 (Mich. 2017)   Cited 67 times
    Distinguishing People v Duncan, 462 Mich 47, 57; 610 NW2d 551, which held that the trial court's complete failure to instruct the jury on the elements of the charged offenses was structural error requiring reversal

    The court, in its discretion, also may provide the jury with a copy of electronically recorded instructions. In People v. Duncan , 462 Mich. 47, 52, 610 N.W.2d 551 (2000), we addressed a case in which the trial court failed to instruct the jury regarding any of the elements of felony-firearm. Duncan held that "[i]t is structural error requiring automatic reversal to allow a jury to deliberate a criminal charge where there is a complete failure to instruct the jury regarding any of the elements necessary to determine if the prosecution has proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt."

  3. Savoy v. State

    420 Md. 232 (Md. 2011)   Cited 102 times
    Noting that “the Michigan Supreme Court held in Duncan that structural errors are automatically reversible, regardless of the failure to make a contemporaneous objection”

    See also United States v. David, 83 F.3d 638, 647-48 (4th Cir. 1996) (applying plain error review to structural error); United States v. Lopez, 71 F.3d 954, 960 (1st Cir. 1995) ("In all events, our best guess is that the Supreme Court would regard an omitted element reversible error per se if there were a timely objection — although not automatically 'plain error' if no objection occurred. . . ."). Petitioner relies for the contrary view on two out-of-state cases, People v. Duncan, 462 Mich. 47, 610 N.W.2d 551 (2000), and State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26, 885 N.E.2d 917 (2008). We do not find those cases persuasive.

  4. People v. Yarbrough

    511 Mich. 252 (Mich. 2023)   Cited 3 times
    Reversing a trial court decision on the administration of voir dire, reversing a unanimous Court of Appeals opinion, and vacating a conviction for a 20-hour rape and physical abuse of a woman, including pinching her with pliers and hitting her with a hammer; concluding that the denial of multiple opportunities for the defendant to use peremptory challenges, although nonconstitutional, was unreviewable structural error in conflict with the overwhelming body of other state and federal law

    While Duncan cites an abundance of federal caselaw, the crux of Duncan's analysis turns only on cited Michigan caselaw to extend a remedy of this magnitude, regardless of preservation, despite no definitive ruling from the United States Supreme Court on the issue. 97People v Duncan, 462 Mich. 47, 51, 610 N.W.2d 551 (2000), citing Neder, 527 U.S. at 8, 119 S.Ct. 1827.

  5. People v. Kabongo

    507 Mich. 78 (Mich. 2021)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge was a nonconstitutional harmless error and noting "for all intents and purposes, harmless-error review will almost always result in automatic affirmance"

    While Duncan cites an abundance of federal caselaw, the crux of Duncan ’s analysis turns only on cited Michigan caselaw to extend a remedy of this magnitude, regardless of preservation, despite no definitive ruling from the United States Supreme Court on the issue.People v. Duncan , 462 Mich. 47, 51, 610 N.W.2d 551 (2000), citing Neder , 527 U.S. at 8, 119 S.Ct. 1827. As the Duncan Court noted, the Court in Neder identified "several examples of structural error":

  6. People v. Nicoll

    No. 364695 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2024)

    Because our handling of Nicoll's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim resolves this appeal, we need not address his remaining claims, including his claim of instructional error related to the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the elements of second-degree fleeing and eluding in its final instructions. See People v Duncan, 462 Mich. 47, 48, 51-55; 610 N.W.2d 551 (2000) (holding that it is structural error when a trial court completely fails to instruct the jury on the elements of a charge). See also People v Traver, 502 Mich. 23, 28; 917 N.W.2d 260 (2018) (holding that our court rules require oral instruction; written instructions are insufficient).

  7. People v. Lynn

    No. 363458 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2023)

    ] However, structural constitutional error requires automatic reversal. People v Duncan, 462 Mich. 47, 51; 610 N.W.2d 551 (2000).

  8. People v. Perrigo

    No. 360567 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2024)

    Structural constitutional error requires automatic reversal. People v Duncan, 462 Mich. 47, 51; 610 N.W.2d 551 (2000). For preserved nonstructural constitutional errors on appeal, the prosecution must prove that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

  9. People v. Vankersen

    No. 355659 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2022)

    The written instructions are not in the lower court file and have not been provided by the prosecution. Defendant argues that reversal is required by People v Duncan, 462 Mich. 47, 48; 610 N.W.2d 551 (2000), in which our Supreme Court stated as follows: We issue this opinion to iterate a bright line rule: It is structural error requiring automatic reversal to allow a jury to deliberate a criminal charge where there is a complete failure to instruct the jury regarding any of the elements necessary to determine if the prosecution has proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

  10. People v. Hudson

    No. 330603 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    "It is structural error requiring automatic reversal to allow a jury to deliberate a criminal charge where there is a complete failure to instruct the jury regarding any of the elements necessary to determine if the prosecution has proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt." People v Duncan, 462 Mich 47, 48; 610 NW2d 551 (2000); see also People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 503; 803 NW2d 200 (2011) ("[A] jury instruction that improperly omits an element of a crime amounts to a constitutional error.") However, "an instructional error regarding one element of a crime, whether by misdescription or omission, is subject to a harmless error analysis," id. at 54, and unpreserved constitutional errors are subject to the plain error rule, Carines, 460 Mich at 764, 768. In sum: