Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Appeal

Michigan appellate courts issued several significant decisions refining how convictions are reviewed, when relief from judgment is appropriate, and how procedural errors must be preserved. These cases collectively clarify retroactivity, evidentiary‑weight standards, error preservation, and the treatment of newly discovered evidence.

• People v Shaver, No 361488, ___ Mich App ___, ___ NW3d ___ (Sept 5, 2024)
• People v Knepper, No 363191, ___ Mich App ___, ___ NW3d ___ (Sept 23, 2024)
• People v Nelson, No 166297, ___ Mich ___, ___ NW3d ___ (Mar 28, 2025)
• People v Bacall, No 369227, ___ Mich App ___, ___ NW3d ___ (Apr 14, 2025)
• People v Butsinas, No 364778, ___ Mich App ___, ___ NW3d ___ (May 28, 2025)

In Shaver, the Court of Appeals held that People v Betts does not apply retroactively to convictions already final on appeal. Knepper reaffirmed that great‑weight challenges face “the highest” standard in Michigan law. Nelson confirmed that the Lukity test remains the governing standard for preserved nonconstitutional error. Bacall clarified how courts must evaluate recanting affidavits in post‑judgment motions. Butsinas held that issues raised for the first time posttrial are unpreserved and reviewed only for plain error.

Case Summary

In People v Kvasnicka, the defendant sent a message to a young girl stating she “would not be laughing” when he came to her school to “shoot it up or blow it up like Columbine.” Charged under Michigan’s threat‑of‑terrorism statute, he argued the law was unconstitutional because it lacked a required subjective mental‑state element.

The Court of Appeals initially agreed, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Counterman v Colorado, which held that true‑threat statutes must require proof that the speaker had a subjective understanding of the threatening nature of their statements.

The Michigan Supreme Court later vacated that decision and remanded the case. On remand, the Court of Appeals upheld the statute by applying the constitutional‑doubt canon and interpreting the law to include a recklessness requirement.

Background

Appeals serve as a safeguard against wrongful convictions and procedural unfairness. Michigan law distinguishes between:

• Preserved vs. unpreserved errors

• Direct appeals vs. collateral attacks

• Newly discovered evidence vs. credibility disputes

• Retroactive vs. prospective application of new legal rules

These distinctions determine whether a conviction stands or a defendant receives a new trial.

Lower and Higher Court Opinions

Shaver: The trial court granted relief based on Betts, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding Betts applies only prospectively.

Knepper: Despite inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, the Court of Appeals held the evidence was not so lacking that the verdict constituted a miscarriage of justice.

Nelson: The Michigan Supreme Court declined to revisit Lukity, reaffirming that defendants must show it is more probable than not that an error affected the outcome.

Bacall: The Court of Appeals held that once a recanting affidavit is deemed not wholly incredible, the trial court must evaluate all evidence to determine whether a different result is probable at retrial.

Butsinas: Issues raised for the first time in a posttrial motion are unpreserved and reviewed only for plain error.

What’s at Stake

These decisions shape the boundaries of appellate relief:

• Retroactivity limits prevent reopening long‑final convictions.

• High evidentiary‑weight standards protect jury verdicts from being overturned lightly.

• Strict preservation rules encourage timely objections.

• Recantation standards ensure courts meaningfully evaluate new evidence without automatically granting retrials.

• Plain‑error review restricts relief when defendants fail to object at trial.

Together, these cases reinforce the structure and predictability of Michigan appellate practice.

In Closing

The appellate rulings in Shaver, Knepper, Nelson, Bacall, and Butsinas clarify how Michigan courts evaluate errors, evidence, and post‑judgment claims. They emphasize finality, procedural rigor, and careful scrutiny of new evidence, shaping the landscape for future appeals.

Relevant Laws, Cases and Articles

• MCL 28.721 et seq. — SORA
• People v Betts, 507 Mich 527 (2021)
• People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999)
• People v Shaver
• People v Knepper
• People v Nelson
• People v Bacall
• People v Butsinas

Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call  248-357-2550.