Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
People v. Turner
Citations: 449 N.W.2d 680; 181 Mich. App. 680Docket: Docket 113589
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals; August 29, 1989; Michigan; State Appellate Court
A prosecutorial appeal was filed following the dismissal of criminal charges against Clarence Turner, Jr. by the circuit court. Turner was initially charged with carrying a concealed weapon in a motor vehicle and possession of marijuana. The district court first suppressed the weapon due to an illegal search and dismissed the CCW charge. Upon the prosecution's motion for rehearing, the district court reversed its decision, finding the search lawful, and bound Turner over for trial. However, the circuit court dismissed the CCW charge, asserting that the district court lacked jurisdiction to rehear the case post-dismissal and had abused its discretion regarding the search and seizure ruling. The Court of Appeals found that the district court had jurisdiction to reconsider its dismissal under MCR 2.119(F), which permits motions for rehearing applicable to criminal matters when no contrary rule exists. The court emphasized that a court's decision is formalized through written orders, not oral statements, suggesting that the district court had not formally dismissed the CCW charge prior to the rehearing. Regarding the suppression issue, the Court of Appeals ruled that the circuit court erred in its assessment of the district court's discretion. It highlighted that determining the suppression of evidence requires a full evidentiary hearing, as established in prior case law (People v Talley), rather than relying solely on preliminary examination records. Without such a hearing, the circuit court could not adequately evaluate the legality of the evidence seizure. A remand is ordered for an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress evidence related to a contested seizure due to the trial court's failure to assess the totality of circumstances and establish probable cause. The remand mandates a de novo inquiry into the constitutional validity of the seizure, emphasizing that trial courts should not rely solely on preliminary examination transcripts for determining the legality of searches or seizures. The legal conclusions drawn from the facts, rather than the facts themselves, are primarily in dispute, necessitating further factual exposition to assist the trial court in its constitutional determination. The circuit court's order dismissing the concealed carry weapon (CCW) charge is vacated, with instructions for consistent proceedings upon remand. The case is distinguished from People v Futrell, as the prosecution has identified areas requiring further factual clarification, unlike the complete stipulation of facts in Futrell.