People of Michigan v. Nancy Peeler, 984 NW2d 80

Defendants (Peeler, Baird, Lyon) were charged for roles in the Flint water crisis after a judge (David Newblatt) served as a “one-man grand jury” under MCL 767.3 and MCL 767.4 and returned charges in secret.
Instead of a prosecutor-filed complaint followed by a public preliminary examination, the Attorney General’s office used the one-man grand-jury statutes; defendants moved to remand for preliminary examinations or to dismiss.
The Genesee Circuit Court denied Peeler’s and Baird’s motions to remand and denied Lyon’s motion to dismiss; Court of Appeals leave was denied for Peeler and Baird; matters reached the Michigan Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether (1) a defendant charged via the one-man grand-jury process is entitled to a preliminary examination, and (2) whether MCL 767.3/.4 authorize a judge to issue indictments initiating prosecutions.
Holding: the Court (1) held defendants charged via the one-man grand jury are entitled to a preliminary examination (overruling People v Green to that extent), and (2) held MCL 767.3/.4 do not authorize a judge to issue indictments (so Lyon’s indictment was invalid); appeals remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to preliminary examination after one-man grand-jury process	One-man grand-jury inquiry is functionally equivalent to a preliminary examination so no separate preliminary hearing is required	MCL 767.4 references a "hearing on the complaint or indictment" and disqualifies the inquiring judge as "examining magistrate," meaning defendants are entitled to a preliminary examination	Court held defendants are entitled to a preliminary examination; overruled People v Green to the extent it held otherwise
Whether MCL 767.3/.4 authorize a judge to issue indictments initiating criminal prosecutions	The one-man grand-jury process historically produced indictments; statutes referencing "indictment" permit judge to initiate charges	Statute authorizes investigation, subpoenas, arrest warrants but does not grant indictment authority; Legislature once allowed indictments then repealed that grant; lack of juror oath supports non-indictment reading	Court held MCL 767.3/.4 do not authorize a judge to issue indictments; indictments issued by the one-man grand jury were unauthorized
Separation of powers / due process challenges to one-man grand-jury procedure	AG argued statutes are constitutional and confer necessary authority	Defendants argued statutes violate separation of powers and due process	Court did not reach constitutional questions, resolving the cases on statutory grounds (constitutional avoidance)

People v Green, 322 Mich App 676 (2018) (Court of Appeals decision that the Supreme Court overruled in part regarding equivalence of one-man grand jury and preliminary examination)
People v Duncan, 388 Mich 489 (1972) (identified MCL 767.4 as containing language providing for a preliminary examination)
In re Colacasides, 379 Mich 69 (1967) (describing legislative purpose for the one-man grand-jury statutes)
People v Bellanca, 386 Mich 708 (1972) (illustrative practice of holding preliminary examinations after one-man grand-jury proceedings)
People v Dungey, 356 Mich 686 (1959) (examples of judges issuing warrants following one-man grand-jury inquiries)
People v Cain, 498 Mich 108 (2015) (discussing the significance of the juror oath and civic function of jurors)