People v. Duenaz
873 N.W.2d 303
Mich.
2016
Check Treatment

SPECTRUM HEALTH HOSPITALS v WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 151419

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 29, 2016

969

tion” under MCL 750.520b(3). We agree, however, that the sentencing judge failed to identify specific evidence from which one could conclude that the imposition of consecutive sentences was warranted. We therefore remand this case to the Kent Circuit Court. On remand, the trial court shall either issue an order that provides a basis for its conclusion that the two criminal offenses arose from the same transaction, or impose concurrent sentences. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Orders Granting Oral Argument in Cases Pending on Application for Leave to Appeal Entered January 29, 2016:

; Court of Appeals No. 323804. The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether
, remains a viable precedent in light of
, and
; and (2) if so, whether Miller should be overruled. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

The Michigan Association for Justice, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc., and the Negligence Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

; reported below:
. The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether the term “police officer” in MCL 750.81d(7)(b)(i) encompasses reserve police officers. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

Leave to Appeal Denied January 29, 2016:

; reported below:
. On January 14, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the July 10, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered, and it is denied, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. We note, however, that the Court of Appeals has remanded this case to the St. Clair Circuit Court for resentencing, and that any such resentencing must comply with the procedure described in
.

In addition, we encourage the Legislature to clarify whether evidence of prior sexual abuse constitutes “sexual conduct” within the meaning of the rape-shield statute, MCL 750.520j. The statute does not define “sexual conduct,” and the proper construction of that term is a question that has divided Justices of this Court. See

(YOUNG, J., concurring) (MARKMAN, J., dissenting);
(MARKMAN, J., dissenting).