From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wilder

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
Jun 12, 2019
928 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. 2019)

Opinion

SC: 159001 COA: 327491

06-12-2019

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell WILDER, a/k/a Darrell John Wilder, a/k/a Darrell J. Wilder, Defendant-Appellant.


Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 27, 2018 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 Part III of the Court of Appeals opinion, and we REMAND this case to that court for reconsideration of the defendant’s argument. The Court of Appeals erred in asserting that the erroneously admitted testimony of Tameachi Wilder regarding her knowledge of the defendant’s prior firearms-related convictions was harmless due to the "untainted and unequivocal testimony" of two police officers that they saw the defendant in possession of the gun. The Court of Appeals failed to acknowledge that two other witnesses (Charmell Richardson and Carlos Wilder) offered testimony that contradicted that testimony. That failure resulted in the Court of Appeals effectively determining that the officers' testimony was credible and that Richardson’s and Wilder’s was not. On remand, the Court of Appeals shall engage in "an examination of the entire cause," People v. Lukity , 460 Mich. 484, 495-496, 596 N.W.2d 607 (1999), and reconsider whether it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.

We do not retain jurisdiction.


Summaries of

People v. Wilder

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan
Jun 12, 2019
928 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. 2019)
Case details for

People v. Wilder

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARRELL WILDER…

Court:Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Date published: Jun 12, 2019

Citations

928 N.W.2d 213 (Mich. 2019)

Citing Cases

People v. Wilder

Subsequently, on June 12, 2019, our Supreme Court entered an order vacating Part III of this Court's opinion…