People v. Musser

258 Citing cases

  1. People v. Smith

    No. 334692 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2018)

    Our Supreme Court has made clear that "it is improper for a witness or an expert to comment or provide an opinion on the credibility of another person while testifying at trial" because "[s]uch comments have no probative value" and "do nothing to assist the jury in assessing witness credibility in its fact-finding mission and in determining the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence." People v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 349; 835 NW2d 319 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, "child-sexual-abuse cases present special considerations given the reliability problems created by children's suggestibility."

  2. People v. Douglas

    496 Mich. 557 (Mich. 2014)   Cited 483 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Section 750.520b(b) "requires a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence..."

    A trial court's decision to admit evidence will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the court “chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of principled outcomes.” People v. Musser, 494 Mich. 337, 348, 835 N.W.2d 319 (2013). If the court's evidentiary error is nonconstitutional and preserved, then it “ ‘is presumed not to be a ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears that, more probably than not, it was outcome determinative’ ”—i.e., that “it undermined the reliability of the verdict.”

  3. People v. Smith

    No. 334692 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2020)

    Because I have the same concerns about Harrison's testimony in this case, I find my previous analysis of this issue to again be implicated on remand by our Supreme Court's directive. In my prior dissent, I discussed caselaw from our Supreme Court and this Court stretching back to 1863, see Evans v People, 12 Mich 27 (1863); People v Row, 135 Mich 505; 98 NW 13 (1904); People v Buckey, 424 Mich 1; 378 NW2d 432 (1985); People v Peterson, 450 Mich 349; 537 NW2d 857 (1995); People v Musser, 494 Mich 337; 835 NW2d 319 (2013); Douglas, 496 Mich 557; People v Walker, 40 Mich App 142; 198 NW2d 449 (1972); People v Parks, 57 Mich App 738; 226 NW2d 710 (1975); People v Shaw, 315 Mich App 668; 892 NW2d 15 (2016), and arrived at the following conclusion: Thus, the rule that can appropriately be derived is that [it] is improper credibility vouching to allow a witness to testify about how he or she personally confirmed various elements of another witness's story or about why another witness's story is plausible or logical.

  4. State v. Rocha

    295 Neb. 716 (Neb. 2017)   Cited 65 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although expressions of disbelief had minimal probative value and posed some risk of unfair prejudice, limiting instruction mitigated risk; hence court did not abuse discretion in admitting expression

    It concluded that the statements were not hearsay because they were not offered, and could not be offered, for the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., to prove that, in fact, the victim was telling the truth or the defendant was lying in the interview).People v. Musser, 494 Mich. 337, 835 N.W.2d 319 (2013).Id.

  5. People v. Piwowar

    No. 359981 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2024)

    Jurors alone are the judges of a witness's credibility, and for that reason, "it is improper for a witness or an expert to comment or provide an opinion on the credibility of another person while testifying at trial." People v Musser, 494 Mich. 337, 349; 835 N.W.2d 319 (2013). "Such comments have no probative value" and are thus inadmissible. Id.

  6. People v. George

    No. 327812 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    The decision to admit evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. People v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 348; 835 NW2d 319 (2013). An abuse of discretion exists if the trial court chooses an outcome outside the range of principled outcomes.

  7. People v. Johnson

    No. 364576 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2024)

    Defendant was interviewed by police detectives in March 2021 and denied the charges against him. Prior to trial, defendant objected to the admission of portions of the interview, arguing that statements by the interviewers appeared to bolster RC's credibility, and that they should be excluded under People v Musser, 494 Mich. 337; 835 N.W.2d 319 (2013). The trial court ordered that the interview be redacted to exclude all statements made after defendant unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent, but it did not otherwise redact any specific statements.

  8. People v. Young

    No. 351793 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2021)

    However, "nonconstitutional, preserved evidentiary errors are not grounds for reversal unless they undermined the reliability of the verdict." People v. Musser, 494 Mich. 337, 363; 835 N.W.2d 319 (2013).

  9. People v. Meshkin

    No. 348831 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2020)

    Additionally, "it is improper for a witness or an expert to comment or provide an opinion on the credibility of another person while testifying at trial." People v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 349; 835 NW2d 319 (2013). Credibility determinations are to be made by the jury, not another witness.

  10. People v. Simmons

    No. 341446 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 20, 2019)

    Testimony describing a person's unsworn, out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted is referred to as hearsay and is generally inadmissible, subject to some exemptions and exceptions. People v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 350; 835 NW2d 319 (2013). "Prior consistent statements are not generally admissible as substantive evidence."