People v. Wilson

33 Citing cases

  1. Wilson v. Parish

    CASE NO. 2:18-cv-10906 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2021)

    ) About a year and a half later, on June 18, 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals, dismissed the felony-murder charge, and remanded the case to trial court. People v. Wilson, 496 Mich. 91; 852 N.W.2d 134 (2014). Justice Stephen J. Markman filed a dissenting opinion, which Justices Brian K. Zahra and David F. Viviano joined.

  2. Giddens v. State

    299 Ga. 109 (Ga. 2016)   Cited 15 times

    In a 4–3 decision, the Michigan Supreme Court went the other way, barring the retrial of a felony murder conviction after it was reversed for trial error, because the defendant was acquitted of the predicate felony. See People v. Wilson, 496 Mich. 91, 852 N.W.2d 134, 136 (2014). We now join the majority of these courts (as well as the dissent in Wilson ) and conclude that a defendant's retrial for convictions that have been reversed or vacated due to trial error is not barred by an inconsistent acquittal.

  3. People v. Card

    No. 340550 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 2023)

    Yet, defendant fails to recognize that the jury's verdict from that trial was vacated. Therefore, the jury's findings or proclamations "are no longer adjudications at all." People v Wilson, 496 Mich. 91, 105; 852 N.W.2d 134 (2014), abrogated on other grounds Bravo-Fernandez v United States, 580 U.S. 5; 137 S.Ct. 352; 196 L.Ed.2d 242 (2016). Thus, with regard to defendant, there was no determination or final adjudication, let alone one that had preclusive effect, and the trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion premised on collateral estoppel.

  4. People v. Wilson

    No. 324856 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 10, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    On November 15, 2012, this Court issued an opinion reversing the trial court's order, reinstating the felony murder charge, and remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings. People v Wilson, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued November 15, 2012 (Docket No. 311253), pp 1-3 (Wilson III), reversed 496 Mich 91 (2014). On January 9, 2013, defendant filed an application for leave to appeal in our Supreme Court.

  5. Bravo-Fernandez v. United States

    137 S. Ct. 352 (2016)   Cited 158 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that issue preclusion can bar the second contest of an issue if it has been "resolved by a prior judgment."

    Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial in these circumstances, we affirm the First Circuit's judgment. Compare United States v. Citron, 853 F.2d 1055, 1058–1061 (C.A.2 1988) (holding that retrial does not violate Double Jeopardy Clause under these circumstances); United States v. Price, 750 F.2d 363, 366 (C.A.5 1985) (same); Evans v. United States, 987 A.2d 1138, 1141–1142 (D.C.2010) (same); and State v. Kelly, 201 N.J. 471, 493–494, 992 A.2d 776, 789 (2010) (same), with People v. Wilson, 496 Mich. 91, 105–107, 852 N.W.2d 134, 141–142 (2014) (holding that Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial in this situation). As the First Circuit explained, “[a]lthough Citron and Price predate Yeager, both the Second and Fifth Circuits decided that vacated counts are relevant to the Ashe analysis at a time when those circuits had already ruled that hung counts should be disregarded for purposes of the Ashe inquiry.” 790 F.3d 41, 51, n. 7 (2015) (citing United States v. Mespoulede, 597 F.2d 329, 332, 335–336 (C.A.2 1979) ; United States v. Nelson, 599 F.2d 714, 716–717 (C.A.5 1979) ).

  6. People v. Beavers

    No. 330694 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 27, 2017)

    Defendant first argues that in light of the jury finding him not guilty of other charges involving a weapon, the jury must not have believed that defendant was in physical possession of a firearm at any time. Whether this is true or not, within a single jury trial, inconsistent verdicts are permissible and do not require reversal. People v Wilson, 496 Mich 91, 100-101; 852 NW2d 134 (2014), abrogated on other grounds by Bravo-Fernandez v United States, 580 US ___, ___; 137 S Ct 352, 359; 196 L Ed 2d 242 (2016). See also People v Vaughn, 409 Mich 463, 466; 295 NW2d 354 (1980).

  7. People v. Smith

    No. 332385 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2017)

    On remand, defendant asserted that a retrial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and, alternatively, that evidence of his gun use or possession must be excluded because he was acquitted of the three weapon-related crimes. Relying on People v Wilson, 496 Mich 91; 852 NW2d 134 (2014), the trial court precluded the prosecution from introducing any evidence regarding defendant's use or possession of a firearm, but otherwise allowed the prosecution to proceed. A few months later, the United States Supreme Court abrogated Wilson in Bravo-Fernandez v United States, ___ US ___; 137 S Ct 352; 196 L Ed 2d 242 (2016).

  8. People v. Marble

    No. 327630 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 15, 2016)

    In essence, collateral estoppel requires that 'once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case.' " People v Wilson, 496 Mich 91, 98; 852 NW2d 134 (2014) (citation omitted). In Ashe, the United States Supreme Court "recognized the conceptual overlap between double jeopardy and collateral estoppel," and held that where an issue is necessarily decided in a defendant's favor in a prior prosecution, a subsequent prosecution—which would necessarily require relitigation of that same issue—is precluded.

  9. People v. Moore

    No. 325201 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2016)

    But unlike a judge, juries are not held to any rules of logic and are not required to explain their decisions. People v Wilson, 496 Mich 91, 100-101; 852 NW2d 134 (2014). An element of this power is the jury's capacity to exercise leniency to release a defendant from some consequences of his acts without absolving him of all responsibility. People v Vaughn, 409 Mich 463, 466; 295 NW2d 354 (1980).

  10. People v. Putman

    309 Mich. App. 240 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 305 times
    Holding that defense counsel was "not ineffective for failing to raise meritless or futile objections"

    Even assuming inconsistency, defendant is not entitled to relief because inconsistent verdicts within a single jury trial are permissible and do not require reversal. People v. Wilson, 496 Mich. 91, 100–101, 852 N.W.2d 134 (2014). “[J]uries are not held to any rules of logic nor are they required to explain their decisions.”