Opinion
February 5, 2008.
Order Entered February 5, 2008.
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 6.201 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will be considered at a public hearing. The notices and agendas for public hearings are posted at www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[The present language would be amended as indicated below:]
RULE 6.201. DISCOVERY.
(A) [Unchanged.]
(B) Discovery of Information Known to the Prosecuting Attorney.Upon request, the The prosecuting attorney must provide each defendant:
(1) any exculpatory information or evidence known to the prosecuting attorney: and
(2) upon request,
(a) any police report and interrogation records concerning the case, except so much of a report as concerns a continuing investigation;
(3) (b) any written or recorded statements by a defendant, codefendant, or accomplice pertaining to the case, even if that person is not a prospective witness at trial;
(4) (c) any affidavit, warrant, and return pertaining to a search or seizure in connection with the case; and
(5) (d) any plea agreement, grant of immunity, or other agreement for testimony in connection with the case.
(C)-(J) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment: The proposed amendment of MCR 6.201(B)(1) would eliminate the requirement that the prosecuting attorney provide the defendant with any exculpatory information or evidence known to the prosecuting attorney only upon request. This proposal also clarifies that the prosecuting attorney is required to provide such information or evidence regardless of whether it is requested by the defendant. The Court would appreciate specific comments on whether a court rule requiring the prosecuting attorney to provide the defendant with exculpatory information or evidence is necessary, in light of the prosecuting attorney's constitutional obligation to do so under Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), and, if so, whether the proposed amendment of MCR 6.201(B)(1) is consistent with the requirements of Brady.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the Secretary of the State Bar and to the State Court Administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on these proposals may be sent to the Supreme Court Clerk in writing or electronically by May 1, 2008, at PO. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or MSC_clerk@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2007-38. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted at www.courts.mi.gov/supremecourt/resources/administrative/index.h tm.
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Rule 7.202 of the Michigan Court Rules. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will be considered at a public hearing by the Court before a final decision is made. The notices and agendas for public hearings are posted on the Court's website at www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[The present language would be amended as indicated below:]
RULE 7.202. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subchapter:
(1)-(5) [Unchanged.]
(6) "final judgment" or "final order" means:
(a) In a civil case,
(i) the first judgment or order that disposes of all the claims and adjudicates the rights and liabilities of all the parties, including such an order entered after reversal of an earlier final judgment or order,
(ii) an order designated as final under MCR 2.604(B),
(iii) in a domestic relations action, a postjudgment order affecting the custody of a minor,
(iv) a postjudgment order awarding or denying attorney fees and costs under MCR 2.403, 2.405, 2.625 or other law or court rule,
(v) An order denying governmental immunity to a governmental party, including a governmental agency, official, or employeeunder MCR 2.116(C)(7) or an order denying summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10) in which a defendant raises a claim of governmental immunity:
(b) [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment: This proposed amendment would clarify that motions for summary disposition that involve claims of governmental immunity based on MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(10) that are denied are appealable by right in the Court of Appeals. This proposed language is designed to address the jurisdictional issue that arose in the cases of Newton v Michigan State Police, 263 Mich App 251 (2004), and Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App 618 (2004).
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the Secretary of the State Bar and to the State Court Administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on this proposal may be sent to the Supreme Court Clerk in writing or electronically by June 1, 2008, at PO. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or MSC_clerk@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2006-09. Your comments will be posted, along with the comments of others, at www.courts.mi. gov/supremecourt/resources/administrative/index.htm.