Summary
criticizing the Court of Appeals for citing older cases from this Court for the proposition that the failure to give a character-evidence instruction automatically requires reversal
Summary of this case from People v. LylesOpinion
Docket No. 150040. COA No. 315323.
10-30-2015
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. William LYLES, Jr., Defendant–Appellee.
Order On October 14, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the July 22, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered. MCR 7.305(H)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Court of Appeals judgment and we REMAND this case to that court.
The Court of Appeals panel correctly stated that “[r]eversal for failure to provide a jury instruction requested by a defendant is unwarranted unless it appears that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” Slip Op, p. 4, citing People v. McKinney, 258 Mich.App. 157, 163, 670 N.W.2d 254 (2003) ; MCL 769.26. However, the panel below did not clearly apply that standard. Instead, the panel cited several older cases from this Court that antedated our current harmless error standard for the proposition that a trial court's failure to give a requested and appropriate character evidence instruction “has been repeatedly held as error requiring reversal.” Slip Op, p. 5.
None of these cases applied our current harmless error standard interpreting MCL 769.26, which holds that a “miscarriage of justice” occurs where it “ ‘affirmatively appear[s]’ that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” People v. Lukity, 460 Mich. 484, 496, 596 N.W.2d 607 (1999). The Court of Appeals panel erred in relying on cases that did not apply the current standard in holding that a miscarriage of justice occurred in this case. On remand, we direct the Court of Appeals to apply our governing standard to the defendant's claim for relief.
We do not retain jurisdiction.