People of Michigan v. Jeffrey George Curle
330079
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Defendant Jeffrey Curle charged; trial set in Macomb Circuit Court. A police officer (Officer Jesperson) endorsed on the prosecutor’s witness list failed to appear for trial for the third time.
- Defense counsel advised at every court date that defense would call subpoenaed police officers if prosecution did not call them.
- Prosecutor had properly served a subpoena on the officer and represented it was ready to proceed to trial without the officer’s live testimony.
- The officer missed trial because of a family emergency (nephew’s car accident) that extended to the adjourned date; the trial court accepted the reason.
- Trial court dismissed charges after concluding the officer was a key witness and the case had been delayed by prior adjournments.
- Prosecutor appealed, arguing dismissal was an abuse of discretion because it was prepared to proceed and alternative remedies (adjournment or missing-witness instruction) were available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was appropriate when an endorsed prosecution witness failed to appear | Prosecutor: dismissal was improper because it was ready to proceed without the witness and alternatives existed | Curle: officer was a vital witness and prior delays prejudiced defendant, warranting dismissal | Reversed: dismissal was an abuse of discretion where prosecutor was ready to proceed and other remedies were available |
| Whether failure to produce an endorsed witness necessarily violates MCL 767.40a | Prosecutor: properly subpoenaed witness whose absence does not automatically equal statutory violation | Curle: endorsement obligated prosecution to produce witness; absence supports remedy up to dismissal | Court: endorsement requires due diligence to produce witness; absence alone does not mandate dismissal |
| Whether adjournment or missing-witness instruction were available remedies | Prosecutor: requested to proceed and, alternatively, to adjourn or receive adverse-inference instruction | Curle: argued prejudice and prior delays made adjournment insufficient | Court: adjournment or missing-witness instruction would have been proper remedies instead of dismissal |
| Whether prior adjournments justified dismissal | Prosecutor: prior adjournments were largely for defense or legitimate reasons and did not justify dismissal | Curle: cumulative delay prejudiced right to speedy/responsive defense | Court: prior adjournments did not justify dismissal when prosecutor remained ready to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Humphrey, 312 Mich. App. 309 (appellate review of dismissal motion standard)
- People v. Jackson, 467 Mich. 272 (continuance/adjournment standards; subpoenaed witness properly served)
- People v. Seewald, 499 Mich. 111 (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Epps v. 4 Quarters Restoration LLC, 498 Mich. 518 (abuse-of-discretion framework)
- People v. Williams, 244 Mich. App. 249 (prosecutor has discretion to decide whether to proceed; dismissal inappropriate if prosecution can proceed)
- People v. Morrow, 214 Mich. App. 158 (dismissing charges for missing prosecution witness when prosecution ready to proceed is improper)