PEOPLE OF MI V MATTHEW R MAGNUS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 191128
Lenawee Circuit Court
LC No. 95-006414-FC
MATTHEW R. MAGNUS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Fitzgerald and Smolenski, JJ.
FITZGERALD, P.J. (concurring.)
In light of the fact that defense counsel merely asked the trial court to review the district court’s
decision on the motion to suppress and did not request an evidentiary hearing, I concur with the
majority’s conclusion that on these facts defendant has not established that the trial court erred in relying
upon the findings of the district court. However, I disagree with the majority’s suggestion that the
Supreme Court intended, by the adoption of MCR 6.110(D)(1), to deny a defendant the right to an
evidentiary hearing in the trial court in those cases where an evidentiary hearing was held in district
court. In my opinion, MCR 6.110(D)(1) simply provides authority for a trial court to make a
determination of a party’s motion to admit or exclude evidence based on a prior evidentiary hearing. I
do not believe that the court rule was intended to deny an evidentiary hearing in the trial court, however,
if such a hearing is sought by a party. Thus, I would hold that a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary
hearing before both the district court and the trial court.
I also disagree with the majority’s acknowledgment that there is tension between People v
Talley, 410 Mich 378; 301 NW2d 809 (1981) and MCR 6.110(D). In Talley, the defendant did not
bring a motion to suppress before the district court, but did bring such a motion before the trial court.
This Court held that a trial court may not rule on a defendant’s motion to suppress based on the
transcript of the preliminary examination alone. 410 Mich at 391. The court rule requires at least a
prior evidentiary hearing on which the trial court can base a decision on a motion to suppress, see MCR
6.110(D)(1), and MCR 6.110(D)(3) requires a new evidentiary hearing in the trial court where there
was no prior evidentiary hearing. Thus, MCR 6.110(D) is harmonious with Talley.
-1
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
