People v. Mack
493 Mich. 1
| Mich. | 2012Background
- MCL 768.27b governs admissibility of defendant's other domestic-violence acts in DV cases; it can broaden admissibility beyond MRE 404(b)(1) in some instances.
- The Michigan Supreme Court held in Watkins that a similar statute, MCL 768.27a, did not infringe Const 1963, art 6, §5 authority; this is invoked to support the majority’s position here.
- The lead opinion concludes MCL 768.27b does not infringe the Court’s rulemaking authority and affirms the Court of Appeals.
- The dissent argues MCL 768.27b is a procedural rule that oversteps legislative authority and violates separation of powers.
- The Court declines to grant leave to appeal and affirms the appellate judgment; the dissent would grant leave for reconsideration of Watkins.
- Key statutory and constitutional background includes Const 1963, art 6, §5 and McDougall v Schanz’s discussion of judicial vs legislative control of admissibility evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MCL 768.27b infringe Const 1963, art. 6, §5 authority? | Mack (majority) argues no infringement; Watkins controls. | Mack (defendant) argues infringement; dissent would hold infringement. | No infringement; statute permissible under practice and procedure authority. |
| Does Watkins control and foreclose challenge to MCL 768.27b? | Watkins reasoning supports non-infringement. | Watkins controls; extends to this case. | Watkins controls; court concludes no infringement. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450; 818 NW2d 296 (2012) (statutory expansion of admissibility did not violate art 6, §5 authority; Watkins governs)
- McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15; 597 NW2d 148 (1999) (limits court's authority over evidence; constitutional separation of powers concerns)