Michigan Rules of Evidence: A Guide to Rules 301-302
Presumptions, those inferences drawn from established facts, play a crucial role in both civil and criminal cases in Michigan.
However, their application is carefully regulated by the Michigan Rules of Evidence, specifically Rules 301 and 302.
This article delves into these rules, providing a clear understanding of their purpose, scope, and practical implications for legal professionals and anyone interested in the intricacies of Michigan’s evidentiary landscape.
Rule 301: Presumptions in Civil Cases
This rule governs the burden of proof related to presumptions in civil proceedings.
It states that unless a statute or other rule dictates otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut it.
This burden of production, however, is distinct from the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who originally had it.
In essence, a presumption shifts the responsibility to present evidence to the opposing party, but the ultimate responsibility to convince the court of their claim rests with the party bearing the initial burden.
The Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook further clarifies the application of Rule 301.
It emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between rebuttable and conclusive presumptions.
Rebuttable presumptions, as described above, can be overcome by evidence, while conclusive presumptions are mandatory inferences that must be accepted by the jury.
The handbook also provides examples of common presumptions, such as the presumption of sanity, the presumption of legitimacy of a child born in wedlock, and the presumption of ownership arising from possession of property.
Have your rights been violated?
Have your driving priviledges been revoked?
Has your professional license been suspended?
Have you been charged with a crime?
Call our office to see if we can help
Komorn Law 248-357-2550
Rule 302: Presumptions in Criminal Cases
For criminal proceedings, Rule 302 takes a different approach. It governs presumptions against a defendant, whether recognized at common law or created by statute.
Unlike Rule 301, Rule 302 doesn’t impose a burden of production on the defendant to rebut a presumption.
Instead, it emphasizes that the prosecution retains the ultimate burden of proving all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless it’s political of course.
The handbook elaborates on this key distinction.
It explains that the jury must be instructed that they may, but are not required to, infer the existence of the presumed fact from the basic facts presented.
This ensures that the jury retains its ultimate power to decide guilt or innocence based on the totality of the evidence, without being coerced by a presumption (in a perfect world).
Key Takeaways:
Civil cases: Presumptions in civil cases shift the burden of production, not the burden of persuasion, to the party against whom the presumption is directed.
Criminal cases: Presumptions against defendants in criminal cases do not shift the burden of proof. The jury must be instructed that they may infer the presumed fact, but are not obligated to do so.
Further Considerations:
The Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook offers valuable insights into the nuances of these rules, including the specific wording of jury instructions, the interplay of presumptions with other evidentiary rules, and the potential limitations of certain presumptions.
For legal professionals navigating complex cases involving presumptions, studying the handbook and consulting relevant case law is crucial for ensuring a comprehensive understanding and effective application of these rules.
By understanding the intricacies of Rules 301 and 302, legal professionals and anyone interested in Michigan’s evidentiary rules can navigate presumptions with confidence, ensuring fair and just outcomes in both civil and criminal proceedings.
Important:
This article provides a simplified overview of the Michigan Rules of Evidence for informational purposes only. It should not be interpreted as legal advice. When facing legal matters, always consult with a qualified attorney for professional guidance.
The Michigan Rules of Evidence are subject to change over time. Always consult the latest official version for accurate information.
Here is the link to the Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook. Check the footer for the latest update.
Related Articles
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
More Posts
Clio marihuana dispensary fighting Genesee County Prosecutor’s office in court
CLIO (WJRT) - (04/25/16) - A Mid-Michigan marihuana dispensary is fighting the Genesee County Prosecutor's office in court after FANG shut them down. The owner of the Clio dispensary says warrants weren't valid and he wants his business back open. Attorneys...
Medical marijuana patients reunited with son after lengthy court battles, unfounded drug charges
SPRING LAKE, Mich. -- After 18 months, a Spring Lake family's son is out of foster care and reunited with his parents. Yet the fight to be together, through court battles and serious drug charges despite being card-carrying medical marijuana patients, still haunts...
Komorn Law Secures Release Of Lorincz Child From CPS in Marijuana Custody Case
“This is one of those cases in an attorney’s career that is not easily forgotten, and is a reminder to me of the reason I became an attorney.” – Michael Komorn, attorney from Komorn Law and recipient of the Michigan Bar Association Right to Counsel Award for 2015....
Komorn AVVO Reviews
Research no further, call Komorn. 5.0 stars Posted by a client December 31, 2015 Hired attorney After an incident involving my medical marihuana grow, I found myself being charged with 2 manufacturing felonies. Upon a recommendation from an associate, I retained...
Criminal Defense Attorney of Michigan Award Committee
The Criminal Defense Attorney of Michigan’s Award Committee has selected Michael J. Komorn as the recipient of their Right to Counsel Award. This award recognizes the amazing contributions of a group or individual in the form of legal representation or other...
Judge dismissed felony charge against medical marijuana patient Max Lorincz
OTTAWA COUNTY, Mich. – After 16 months of a criminal and family court battle, an Ottawa County Circuit Court Judge dismissed wrongful felony charges against a Spring Lake father and card-carrying medical marijuana patient for having “synthetic THC.” Friday Max...
Southfield attorneys accuse MSP Crime Lab of negligence and incompetence
Two local attorneys have filed a formal complaint against the Michigan State Police Crime Lab, suggesting the agency should be made into an independent entity, but state officials have refuted the accusations of negligence and incompetence. Southfield-based...
Forensic scientists blast State Police crime lab THC policy as man fights to get son back
Maxwell Lorincz lives in Spring Lake near Lake Michigan with his wife and their six-year-old son. At least, they did live with their son, until a year and a half ago. They lost custody of him after Lorincz was charged with a felony for possessing synthetic THC....
People v Redden & Clark – MI Medical Marijuana hearing – February 20 2013
During this February 20, 2013 hearing, Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Beth Hand notified the court that her office is contemplating filing criminal charges against a medical doctor for his involvement in certifying two medical marijuana patients, Robert Redden...
Medical marijuana lawyers want state crime lab moved out of Michigan State Police
"The attorneys claim the policy change is leading to unfair felony charges for patients who would otherwise face misdemeanors." Posted on MichiganRadio.org A group of criminal defense attorneys says the Michigan State Police (MSP) should no longer...