Legal Opinion

People v. Anderson

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided August 26, 1994No. 95406, (Calendar No. 8)PublishedCited by 123 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AFTER REMAND

Riley, J.

In this case, we are called upon first to determine whether admission of a postarraign ment statement by the defendant violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and, second, if it was a violation, whether the admission of this statement and the admission of certain hearsay statements in violation of MRE 803(4) can be deemed harmless, errors. With regard to the post-arraignment statement, we find that it was admitted in violation of defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Moreover, we are not persuaded that this error was harmless and therefore reverse the…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991

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

3Cited by123 opinions

  1. People v. LukityMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  2. People v. StanawayMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
  3. People v. KowalskiMichigan Supreme Court · 2011
  4. People v. WatsonMichigan Court of Appeals · 2001
  5. People v. GravesMichigan Supreme Court · 1998

118 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