996 N.W.2d 750
Mich. Ct. App.2022Background
- Ronald Scott was charged with two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and other offenses; pretrial the trial court excluded other-acts evidence.
- The prosecution obtained an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals, which reversed and directed admission of the other-acts evidence.
- Scott filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court; while that application remained pending, the trial proceeded and the previously excluded other-acts evidence was admitted.
- A jury convicted Scott of two CSC-I counts; he was sentenced and the Supreme Court initially denied leave, but later appellate litigation produced multiple reversals/remands including review tied to People v Washington.
- The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in People v Washington (Washington III) required this Court to reconsider whether a pending Supreme Court leave application divested the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction; applying Washington III, this Court held the trial court lacked jurisdiction, vacated the convictions and sentences, and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court observed (although the parties did not brief it) that when a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction jeopardy likely does not attach, so Scott may be retried on all original charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to try Scott after the Court of Appeals decided the interlocutory appeal and while Scott’s application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court was pending | People contended Washington III should not apply to this interlocutory appeal and that the trial’s proceedings were valid | Scott argued the pending Supreme Court leave application divested the trial court of jurisdiction over the appealed aspect (admission of other-acts evidence) | Court applied Washington III and held the trial court was divested of jurisdiction over the appealed issue; the judgment of sentence was void and convictions and sentences were vacated; remand for a new trial |
| Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after a trial conducted without subject-matter jurisdiction | Not argued by parties | Not argued by parties | Court noted precedent suggesting jeopardy does not attach when a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, so retrial on all charges appears permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Washington, 508 Mich 107 (Mich. 2021) (appellate review divests the trial court of jurisdiction over the appealed aspects; actions taken by the trial court while appeal is pending are void)
- People v George, 399 Mich 638 (Mich. 1977) (trial court lacked jurisdiction to retry defendant while leave application to the Supreme Court was pending)
- People v Phillips, 383 Mich 464 (Mich. 1970) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by consent)
- In re Ives, 314 Mich 690 (Mich. 1946) (jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be conferred by waiver)
- Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich 23 (Mich. 1992) (actions by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction are void)
- Hoffler v Bezio, 726 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2013) (where a trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, double jeopardy generally does not attach)