People of Michigan v. Jason Brent Keister ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Order                                                                                         Michigan Supreme Court
    Lansing, Michigan
    July 2, 2020                                                                                       Bridget M. McCormack,
    Chief Justice
    159912(63)                                                                                               David F. Viviano,
    Chief Justice Pro Tem
    Stephen J. Markman
    Brian K. Zahra
    Richard H. Bernstein
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                                                      Elizabeth T. Clement
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                                                                         Megan K. Cavanagh,
    Justices
    v                                                                  SC: 159912
    COA: 340931
    JASON BRENT KEISTER,                                               Van Buren CC: 2016-020783-FC
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _________________________________________/
    On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 27,
    2020 order is considered. We MODIFY the order, which now states:
    On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May
    16, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to
    MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that
    part of the Court of Appeals judgment holding that the admission of
    testimony from Dr. Angela May that “there was a high likelihood of abuse”
    was not plain error. See People v Keister, unpublished per curiam opinion
    of the Court of Appeals, issued May 16, 2019 (Docket No. 340931) at 5-6.
    Her testimony was plainly contrary to People v Smith, 
    425 Mich. 98
    (1986),
    People v Peterson, 
    450 Mich. 349
    (1995), and People v Thorpe, 
    504 Mich. 230
    (2019). We REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for
    consideration of whether the prejudice prong of the plain-error test was
    satisfied, and, if so, whether reversal of the defendant’s convictions is
    warranted. See People v Carines, 
    460 Mich. 750
    , 763-764 (1999). In all
    other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded
    that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
    We do not retain jurisdiction.
    In all other respects, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED, because we are not
    persuaded that further reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR
    7.311(G).
    I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
    foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
    July 2, 2020
    a0630
    Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 159912

Filed Date: 7/2/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/6/2020