From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Heath

Supreme Court of Michigan
Sep 28, 2022
SC 163679 (Mich. Sep. 28, 2022)

Opinion

SC 163679 COA 350430

09-28-2022

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY JUNIOR HEATH, Defendant-Appellant.


Calhoun CC: 2018-001606-FC

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice Brian K. Zahra David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Elizabeth T. Clement Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch, Justices

ORDER

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 26, 2021 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment addressing the admission of other-acts evidence, and we REMAND this case to that court for reconsideration in light of People v Denson, 500 Mich. 385 (2017), and People v Golochowicz, 413 Mich. 298, 310-312 (1982). See People v Chandler, 502 Mich. 879 (2018).

The prosecutor argued in the trial court that the other-acts evidence was relevant to prove a common plan or scheme. However, merely reciting a proper purpose for admitting other-acts evidence is insufficient to support admission of such evidence. Denson, 500 Mich. at 400. Rather, courts must "closely scrutinize" whether that evidence is logically relevant to the alleged proper purpose. Id. In this case, the other-acts evidence was not logically relevant to prove a common plan or scheme, as it was undisputed that the alleged offense occurred. See People v Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich. 43, 63 (2000) (explaining that "evidence of similar misconduct is logically relevant to show that the charged act occurred where the uncharged misconduct and the charged offense are sufficiently similar to support an inference that they are manifestations of a common plan, scheme, or system") (emphasis added). Instead, the only possible logically relevant proper purpose for the admission of this evidence was to prove identity, i.e., that defendant was the one who committed the charged offense. "Golochowicz identifies the requirements of logical relevance when the proponent is utilizing a modus operandi theory to prove identity." People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52, 66 (1993).

On remand, the Court of Appeals shall apply Golochowicz to determine whether the other-acts evidence was admissible to prove identity. The Court of Appeals shall consider whether the defendant's other act and the charged offense were sufficiently similar to support this theory of relevance. See Denson, 500 Mich. at 402-403. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.


Summaries of

People v. Heath

Supreme Court of Michigan
Sep 28, 2022
SC 163679 (Mich. Sep. 28, 2022)
Case details for

People v. Heath

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY JUNIOR…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Sep 28, 2022

Citations

SC 163679 (Mich. Sep. 28, 2022)