Legal Opinion

People v. Elston

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 2000No. 114906, Calendar No. 3PublishedCited by 113 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCorrigan, J.

We granted the prosecution’s application for leave to appeal to decide whether the trial court had a duty to grant a continuance on its own motion in response to newly discovered evidence. We conclude that it did not, and that defendant is not otherwise entitled to a new trial on the basis of the alleged discovery violations. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which reversed *754defendant’s jury trial conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b; MSA 28.788(2), and remand for consideration of defendant’s remaining appellate issues.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. People v. CarinesMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Weatherford v. BurseySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. People v. LukityMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  5. People v. StanawayMichigan Supreme Court · 1994

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by113 opinions

  1. People v. CornellMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  2. People v. SchaeferMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  3. People v. FrazierMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
  4. People v. RodriguezMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  5. People v. McCrayMichigan Court of Appeals · 2001

108 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API