224 Mich. App. 403 - People v. McFall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendant's argument must fail because his premise, that CJI2d 20.25 is given only in cases involving charges of criminal sexual conduct, is without factual support. This Court is aware of no authority, nor has defendant cited any, establishing that this instruction cannot be given in cases involving other offenses. Moreover, it is well established that trial courts are not required to use the Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions, which do not have the official sanction of the Michigan Supreme Court. People v. Petrella, 424 Mich. 221, 277 , 380 N.W.2d 11 (1985). Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the circuit court treated him less favorably than it would have treated a similarly situated defendant not charged with criminal sexual conduct. Accordingly, defendant has not established that the court's use of CJI2d 20.25 violated his right to equal protection under the laws. [ McFall, supra at 413-414 , 569 N.W.2d 828 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 232 Mich. App. 284 - Crego v. Coleman

2. “by exalting the complainants [in criminal sexual conduct cases] above other crime victims by instructing jurors that their testimony alone can justify conviction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 232 Mich. App. 284 - Crego v. Coleman