Jason David Sadowski v. State of Michigan
354193
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 22, 2021Background
- Sadowski was convicted at trial of solicitation to commit murder, torture, unlawful imprisonment, and assault by strangulation.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed his convictions, ordering a new trial based on a Confrontation Clause violation; the panel also found admission of handgun evidence was erroneous and prejudicial.
- At retrial, Sadowski was acquitted of all charges; he contends the acquittals were based on “new evidence” (lay and expert testimony and physical evidence) not presented at the first trial.
- Sadowski filed a claim under the Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act (WICA), MCL 691.1751 et seq.; the state moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
- The Court of Claims granted the state’s motion, ruling Sadowski could not satisfy MCL 691.1755(1)(c) because his convictions were reversed for constitutional and evidentiary error—not because of new evidence.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding itself bound by Tomasik v Michigan and declining to overturn that precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WICA requires that a conviction be reversed on the basis of new evidence to recover | Sadowski: WICA does not require the reversal itself to be based on new evidence; he need only show new evidence demonstrates innocence and that reversal and acquittal occurred | State: MCL 691.1755(1)(c) requires that the new evidence itself result in reversal/vacation of the conviction or pardon and then dismissal or not-guilty on retrial | Held: Court follows Tomasik—statute unambiguously requires new evidence to result in reversal; Sadowski failed this element |
| Whether summary disposition on MCR 2.116(C)(10) was proper given Sadowski's claim of new evidence at retrial | Sadowski: There are factual issues (new witnesses/evidence) that preclude summary disposition | State: No admissible proof that new evidence produced the reversal; legal defect (Confrontation Clause) was basis for reversal, so no genuine issue of material fact on statutory element | Held: (C)(10) proper—no admissible evidence establishes new evidence caused the reversal |
| Whether this panel can overturn Tomasik precedent | Sadowski: Tomasik was wrongly decided and should be overturned | State: Tomasik is binding; this panel lacks authority to overrule it | Held: Panel bound by Tomasik under MCR 7.215(J)(1); will not convene special panel to create conflict |
Key Cases Cited
- Tomasik v. Michigan, 327 Mich. App. 660 (2019) (interpreting MCL 691.1755(1)(c) to require that new evidence itself result in reversal or pardon and subsequent dismissal or not-guilty finding)
- Slis v. Michigan, 332 Mich. App. 312 (2020) (statutory language is applied as written when clear and unambiguous)
- West v. General Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 177 (2003) (definition of a genuine issue of material fact for summary-judgment purposes)
- Pioneer State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dells, 301 Mich. App. 368 (2013) (MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests factual support for a party's action)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999) (court may consider only substantively admissible evidence proffered when ruling on a (C)(10) motion)