PEOPLE OF MI V MARK RYAN NICKERSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 13, 2007
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 271459
Lapeer Circuit Court
LC No. 06-008723-AR
MARK RYAN NICKERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Servitto, P.J., and Talbot and Schuette, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals, by leave granted, a circuit court order denying his application for
leave to appeal from a district court order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. We
reverse both orders, and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant was charged with the misdemeanor offenses of operating a motor vehicle
while intoxicated, second offense, MCL 257.625(9)(b), and possession of open intoxicants in a
vehicle, MCL 257.624a. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery in district court, arguing
that the court had the inherent power to order discovery in a criminal case in order to prevent
trial by “surprise and ambush.” The district court granted the motion, and ordered defendant to
provide plaintiff with a witness list not less than ten days before trial.
Defendant sought leave to appeal to the circuit court. He argued that MCR 6.201, which
governs discovery in criminal cases, applies only to felony cases, and noted that our Supreme
Court had clearly stated as much in Administrative Order (AO) No. 1999-3. The circuit court
denied the application, reasoning that discovery aided the proper administration of justice, and
noting that other jurisdictions had held that a trial court has the inherent authority to grant
discovery beyond that allowed by statute in criminal cases.
We review a trial court’s decision regarding discovery for an abuse of discretion, and
review the interpretation of a court rule de novo. People v Phillips, 468 Mich 583, 587; 663
NW2d 463 (2003).
MCR 6.201 governs discovery in a criminal case. Id. at 589; AO No. 1994-10. In People
v Sheldon, 234 Mich App 68, 70-71; 592 NW2d 121 (1999), this Court noted that AO No. 199410 made no distinction between felony and misdemeanor cases, and on that basis held that MCR
-1-
6.201 applied to misdemeanor cases. Thereafter, our Supreme Court issued AO No. 1999-3, in
which it stated that this Court’s decision in Sheldon, supra, was based on an “erroneous”
interpretation of AO No. 1994-10, and that “MCR 6.201 applies only to criminal felony cases.”
MCR 6.201(A)(1) mandates discovery of witness lists. However, because this rule
applies only to felony cases (AO No. 1999-3; see also People v Greenfield (On Reconsideration),
271 Mich App 442, 450 n 6; 722 NW2d 254 (2006)), the argument advanced by plaintiff, that a
trial court has the inherent authority to order discovery even in the absence of a statute or court
rule, is without merit. Furthermore, the circuit court’s reliance on foreign authority was
misplaced in light of the existence of clear Michigan authority on this issue. The district court
thus abused its discretion by granting plaintiff’s request for discovery. Phillips, supra at 587.
The decisions of the district court and the circuit court are reversed, and this case is
remanded to the district court for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.