People v. Meredith

53 Citing cases

  1. People v. Borns

    No. 318376 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Although the burden of proof at the preliminary hearing was lower than that at trial, defendant still had a similar motive to cross-examine the witnesses against him. See People v Meredith, 459 Mich 62, 67; 586 NW2d 538 (1998) (holding preliminary examination testimony of an unavailable witness was admissible against the defendant under the Confrontation Clause and MRE 804(b)(1)). Indeed, defendant took advantage of his opportunity to cross-examine Rankin at the prior hearing.

  2. People v. Duncan

    494 Mich. 713 (Mich. 2013)   Cited 283 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Duncan, the child witness responded that she did not know the difference between the truth and a lie. 494 Mich. at 727.

    This rather obvious proposition is bolstered by our caselaw. In People v. Meredith, 459 Mich. 62, 65, 586 N.W.2d 538 (1998), we held that a would-be witness who intended to assert her Fifth Amendment right and not testify at trial was “unavailable” as a witness for purposes of MRE 804(a), even though the situation was “not expressly treated in MRE 804(a)....” We stated that invocation of the Fifth Amendment right “is of the same character as the other situations outlined in the subrule.”

  3. People v. McCall

    No. 306336 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2012)

    Under this rule, the trial court can admit the testimony of an unavailable witness only if the defendant had both an opportunity and similar motives to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary examination. People v Meredith, 459 Mich 62, 69-71; 586 NW2d 538 (1998). Id. at 66-67.

  4. People v. Czarnecki

    No. 348732 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2021)

    In People v Meredith, 459 Mich. 62, 65-66; 586 N.W.2d 538 (1998), our Supreme Court recognized that a witness who relies on the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying at trial is unavailable under MRE 804(a). The Court explained:

  5. People v. Erving

    No. 347728 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 17, 2020)

    Clearly, however, defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the victim as required under MRE 804(b)(1). See, e.g., People v Meredith, 459 Mich 62, 67; 586 NW2d 538 (1998) (holding that the defendant, who chose not to cross-examine a witness at the preliminary examination, had the "opportunity" to do so). Indeed, defendant took advantage of his opportunity and cross-examined the victim. Turning to defendant's related-Confrontation Clause argument, "the Confrontation Clause guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish."

  6. People v. Farmer

    No. 345496 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 11, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    In light of the witness's unavailability, MRE 804(b)(1) permits the trial court to admit into evidence her former testimony from the preliminary examination if defense counsel had an opportunity and similar motivation to develop her testimony on cross-examination. People v Meredith, 459 Mich 62, 66-67; 586 NW2d 538 (1998). When the court rule is satisfied, use of the preliminary examination testimony does not violate a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses.

  7. People v. Haywood

    No. 344797 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 2, 2020)

    When a witness is unavailable, "testimony given by the person at an earlier hearing is not excluded by the hearsay rule if the party against whom the testimony is offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony through cross-examination." People v Meredith, 459 Mich 62, 66-67; 586 NW2d 538 (1998); MRE 804(b)(1). Here, defense counsel cross-examined the victim at the preliminary examination regarding the charges, and there was a similar motive to develop the victim's testimony.

  8. People v. Pritchett

    No. 329901 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2017)

    We disagree. Rule 804(B)(1) of the Michigan Rules of Evidence provides that, where a witness is unavailable, testimony given by the person at an earlier hearing is not excluded by the hearsay rule if the party against whom the testimony is offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony through cross-examination. [People v Meredith, 459 Mich 62, 66-67; 586 NW2d 538 (1998).] "Even when evidence of an unavailable witness is admissible under the Michigan Rules of Evidence, it is still necessary to determine whether use of the testimony would violate a defendant's constitutional right to confront prosecution witnesses."

  9. People v. Perez

    No. 324861 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2016)

    Even when evidence is admissible under MRE 804, "it is still necessary to determine whether use of the testimony would violate a defendant's constitutional right to confront prosecution witnesses." People v Meredith, 459 Mich 62, 67; 586 NW2d 538 (1998). Testimony given at a preliminary examination is testimonial in nature and implicates the Confrontation Clause. Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 60; 124 S Ct 1354; 158 L Ed 177 (2004).

  10. People v. Dawson

    No. 302650 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 2012)

    Although a preliminary examination's purpose and standard of proof do not mirror that of a trial, a defendant has a similar motive to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary examination. People v Meredith, 459 Mich 62, 67; 586 NW2d 538 (1998); People v Adams, 233 Mich App 652, 659; 592 NW2d 794 (1999). In this case, defendant's trial counsel cross- examined Anderson at the preliminary examination and elicited testimony that she was on medication at the time of the alleged incident, that she was the only witness to the alleged incident, and that she only saw a glimpse of her abductor's face.