PEOPLE OF MI V DARELL RAMON BROWN (Dissenting Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED January 7, 2020 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 347265 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2018-268144-FC DARELL RAMON BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. Before: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and METER and STEPHENS, JJ. METER, J. (DISSENTING). I respectfully dissent from the majority’s well-written opinion. The majority recognizes that “defendant failed to articulate any reason why Howard should command such a price, offer an estimated total to the trial court, or object to the trial court’s award.” Maj op at 8. This should have been the end of our inquiry. It is the defendant’s burden to show that expert fees are necessary. Maj op at 4; People v Kennedy, 502 Mich 206, 226-228; 917 NW2d 335 (2018). Accordingly, where the defendant fails to adequately support his request for additional fees, the trial court should deny the request. On this ground alone, I would affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for additional funds for his expert. /s/ Patrick M. Meter -1-

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.