Opinion · Milaw Michigan
PEOPLE v. JACKSON, 472 Mich. 884 (2005)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Mich., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NICHOLAS JAMESJACKSON, Defendant-Appellant., 695 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. 2005)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Milaw Michigan
- Jurisdiction
- Milaw
- Date
- 2005-04-07
- Topic
- general
PEOPLE v. JACKSON, 472 Mich. 884 (2005) 695 N.W.2d 67 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NICHOLAS JAMESJACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 125250.Supreme Court of Michigan. April 7, 2005.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed PEOPLE v. JACKSON, 472 Mich. 884 (2005). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
PEOPLE v. JACKSON,472 Mich. 884(2005)
695 N.W.2d 67
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NICHOLAS JAMES
JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 125250.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
April 7, 2005.
On October 7, 2004, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2003 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is again considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties are directed to include among the issues addressed: (1) whether the admission of the oral and written statements made by Anthony Leroy Hines to the police was error in light ofCrawfordv. Washington,541 US 36;124 S Ct 1354;158 L Ed 2d 177(2004), and, if so, whetherCrawfordshould be applied retroactively; (2) whether the trial court erred when it applied the rape-shield statute, MCL750.520j, and denied defendant an opportunity to present testimony regarding his allegations that the complainant had made a prior false allegation of sexual abuse against a different individual. SeePeople v. Hackett,421 Mich 338(1984); (3) whether alleged prior false allegations constitute "specific instances of the victim's sexual conduct" as contemplated by the rape-shield statute; (4) what procedural and evidentiary requirements must be met to prove that the allegations are false and for their admission as evidence at trial; and (5) if the trial court did err in excluding or admitting evidence, whether any evidentiary or constitutional errors were harmless. SeePeople v. Carines,460 Mich 750(1999).
The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the questions presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.