People of Michigan v. Ethan Thomas Smith
329353
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 16, 2017Background
- Defendant charged with assault by strangulation and assault with intent to do great bodily harm; appellants Havis and Shannon entered appearances as defense counsel in Aug 2015.
- Trial court issued a scheduling order (May 28, 2015) setting an August 13 motion cut-off, requiring witness lists per MCL 767.40a, and scheduling trial for Sept 1, 2015.
- Prosecutor filed an amended witness list July 29, 2015 adding Justin Allen and served a MCL 768.27b notice of other acts; defense objected and requested ruling and time to locate rebuttal witnesses.
- Defense filed a witness list on Aug 31, 2015 (after the deadlines); the court found defense had failed to comply with MCR 6.201 and its scheduling order and had not shown good cause or filed a motion to add witnesses.
- Trial court adjourned trial to Sept 15, 2015, ordered defense to file a witness list within 5 days, and imposed sanctions of $1,000 each on the two attorneys for failing to follow the scheduling order.
- Court of Appeals vacated the sanctions order and remanded for reassessment, concluding the sanctions were an abuse of discretion as imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to sanction defense counsel for failing to follow the scheduling order and discovery rules | Trial court properly exercised authority under MCR 6.201(J) and MCR 2.401 to enforce scheduling and discovery obligations | Counsel contended the court lacked authority (or that the statutory witness list obligation did not apply to defendant) and that they should not be sanctioned | The Court of Appeals declined to decide the statute question; held counsel nevertheless had to obey the court order until vacated, so authority to sanction need not be resolved here |
| Whether ordering sanctions without explanation was proper | Sanctions were warranted for willful violation of discovery/scheduling order | Sanctions were excessive and not justified by the minimal prejudice caused | The sanctions were vacated as an abuse of discretion because the court gave no explanation for the $1,000 amount and the violation caused minimal prejudice (trial was continued and only a couple additional names were disclosed) |
| Proper remedies for tardy witness disclosures | Court may impose sanctions, continuance, or other remedies under MCR 6.201(J) | A continuance or allowing the late-filed list would serve the discovery goals and typically suffice | Continuance was used and usually is the remedy of choice; additional monetary sanctions must be reasonable and explained |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Jackson, 292 Mich App 583 (discussing abuse-of-discretion review of MCR 6.201(J) sanctions)
- People v Grove, 455 Mich 439 (authority to enforce scheduling orders)
- People v Greenfield, 271 Mich App 442 (scope of MCR 6.201 discovery)
- People v Burwick, 450 Mich 281 (continuance as preferred remedy when it serves factfinding and notice interests)
- In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App 96 (parties must obey court orders even if they believe them incorrect)
- People v Banks, 249 Mich App 247 (balancing factors and prejudice when choosing remedies for discovery violations)
- Houston v Southwest Detroit Hospital, 166 Mich App 623 (appellate review requires knowing how and why discretionary decisions were made)