2008-36: Criminal Jurisprudence & Practice Committee

9/21/2011 S Ct decision:

In People v Wright, Jr, __ Mich __ (#143120, 9/21/2011) the Supreme Court in lieu of granting leave to appeal, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The prosecutor did not move to dismiss the case, and the order of dismissal states that the dismissal was “on motion of the court.” We REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issues raised by the prosecutor but not addressed by that court during its initial review of this case. MARILYN KELLY, J., would deny leave to appeal.

5/17/2011 COA decision:

Opinion Date: 05/17/2011
e-Journal Date: 06/01/2011

Practice Area(s):

Criminal Law

Issues: Mootness; People v. Richmond; City of Warren v. Detroit
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: People v. Wright
e-Journal Number: 48849
Judge(s): Memorandum – Cavanagh, Talbot, and Stephens

The court agreed with the defendant that the prosecutor's own action in voluntarily dismissing the charges extinguished any existing controversy between the parties, thus rendering an appeal moot. Defendant was charged with drug and firearm offenses after the execution of a search warrant at defendant's home. He moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that the supporting affidavit failed to establish probable cause for the search. The trial court agreed that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause to issue a search warrant, and also found that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. Thus, the trial court suppressed the evidence. The prosecutor moved to dismiss the charges due to the lack of admissible evidence and the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice. The prosecutor appealed the trial court's order dismissing the charges pursuant to the prosecutor's motion after the trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. The court will not decide a moot issue unless it is deemed to be of public significance and is likely to recur while simultaneously likely to evade judicial review. The court held that the facts here, like those in Richmond, did not meet the exception. Thus, the mootness doctrine precluded review. Dismissed as moot.