Picture the common situation where a minor has drank alcohol to the point of sickness. The minor, fearing legal repercussions, chooses not to seek health treatment, making a bad situation worse. Changes to the minor in possession law attempt to remedy the situation.
Minors will now have immunity from prosecution for a minor in possession charge where;
A minor presents himself or herself to a health facility for treatment.
The Michigan Court of Appeals in People v. Bono discusses the Michigan Gross Indecency statute. To be specific, the Court answered the question of whether masturbation was an act of gross indecency, and whether the jury instructions for gross indecency must be limited to penetration, fellatio, and cunnilingus, or can be expanded to other acts
Defendants were in a bathroom stall at Meijers. One defendant was masturbating the other defendant.
Both defendants were charged with gross indecency. The defendant’s criminal defense attorneys filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the act did not constitute gross indecency, specifically, that there was no penetration of the penis into any areas, and therefore there was no fellatio or sexual intercourse. The second grounds for dismissal was the defendants were not in public.
Michigan’s new arson law goes into effect today. It has been completely rewritten to reflect the following;
1. First Degree Arson. The wilful or malicious burning of any of the following. First degree arson is a felony, punishable by life or any term of years, a $20,000 fine / 3 times the value of the destroyed property, or both. MCL 750.72. It is a B felony under the sentencing guidelines. MCL 7707.16c.
a. A multi-unit building or in which 1 or more units are dwellings. MCL 750.72(1)(a).
Under the Sixth Amendment criminal defendants are guaranteed the right to effective assistance of counsel. In the case of Missouri v. Frye, the U.S. Supreme Court held that effective assistance means that defense counsel must communicate offers for plea bargains to the defendants.
In the summer of 2007 Frye was charged with driving with a revoked license. Frye had been convicted of that same offense three times, so he was now charged with a felony punishable by up to four years in prison.
Frye’s defense counsel received a letter from the prosecutor offering two potential plea bargains. The first offer was a plea to the original felony charge with a recommendation that Frye serve 10 days in jail. The second offer was to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor, with the recommendation of a 90 day sentence, out of a possible one year maximum sentence. The letter contained the condition that both offers would expire within two months. Frye was never advised of the offers by his attorney.
The United States Supreme Court, in Howes v. Fields, rejected a per se rule that questioning a prison inmate in a room isolated from the general prison population about events occurring outside the prison is custodial interrogation.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution requires that a person in “custodial interrogation” be read Miranda rights, those rights which come from the case of Miranda v. Arizona.
Fields was serving a sentence in a Michigan jail. He was taken to a room in another section of the facility by a corrections officer. In this room, two sheriff’s deputies questioned him about allegations of criminal acts occurring outside the prison.
The Michigan Supreme Court took up some important issues related to the Michigan Gross Indecency Law in the consolidated cases of People v. Lino and People v. Bashier.
There were four issues in these cases:
In People v. Lino, the defendant was charged with gross indecency after a police officer observed him giving oral sex to another man in a parked truck. The defendant was charged under MCL 750.338, gross indecency between males.
Two Michigan laws that went into effect this past week will deny certain insurance benefits related to medical marijuana.
Employers will not be required to provide reimbursement for expenses related to medical marihuana under worker’s compensation benefits. MCL 418.315a.
Personal protection insurance benefits, also known as no-fault car insurance, will not be required to cover medical marijuana treatments. MCL 500.3107.
In the case of People v. Tipolt, the Court of Appeals discusses the foundation requirements for the introduction of Breathalyzer evidence for trial.
Defendant Tipolt was arrested in White Lake Township and charged with the equivalent of the driving while intoxicated crimes at the time the case was decided.
In the District Court, the defense moved to suppress the results of the Breathalyzer machine. The defense claimed there a failure by the police to comply with the administrative rules regarding the machine. The specific rule at hand was the requirement for an inspection by a class IV operator of the machines within 120 days of the machine’s last inspection date.
The following is an outline of the new criminal law legislation in Michigan for the year of 2011;
A. Bath Salts. 2011 PA 88. Effective Aug. 2, 2011. Adds bath salts that are sold under some of the following trade names to schedule 1; White Lighting, Scarface, Sonic, White Dove, Cloud Nine, Red Dove, Ocean, Ivory Wave, Hurricane Charlie, Charge Plus, and MDPV. MCL 333.7212(1)(m-r).
B. Criminal Sexual Conduct by Health Professionals. 2011 PA 222-224. Effective Nov. 15, 2011. Allows or permanent revocation of a medical professional’s license if convicted o 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree criminal sexual conduct committed as part of their profession. MCL 333.16245. Revocation by licensing department is not mandatory. MCL 333.16226.
The Fourth Amendment requires that police obtain a warrant before entering a home though there are some exceptions. One exception involves a situation in which evidence of a crime is being destroyed. In the case of Kentucky v. King, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the question of whether this rule applies when the police, by knocking on the door of a home and announcing their presence, cause the occupants to the destroy evidence in the first place.
The Court ruled that police may make a warrantless entry into a home where they have cause to believe that the occupants are engaged in the destruction of evidence, so long as the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment or threaten to do so prior to entry into the home.
This case arose in Lexington, Kentucky, where police officers set up a controlled buy of crack cocaine near an apartment complex. After the buy was completed the police moved in on the buyer but he moved too quickly and entered an apartment. Police officers converged on the apartment complex though could not discern which one of two apartments the buyer had entered. The scent of marijuana was coming from one of the apartments and the police knocked on that door and announced their presence.
Ann Arbor Criminal Defense Blog
