Recent Criminal Appellate Decisions

Understanding Recent Developments in Michigan Criminal Law: Key Court of Appeals Decisions Every Defendant Should Know

By Luke

When you're facing criminal charges in Michigan, the law that applies to your case isn’t just written in statutes — it’s shaped every day by decisions from the Michigan Court of Appeals. Staying on top of recent rulings can help defense attorneys spot emerging arguments and protect clients from government overreach. Here are three recent cases from 2024–2025 that could impact your rights or defense strategy.

1. Probation Conditions Must Have a Nexus to Rehabilitation

In People v Goodwin, Mich App ; 2024 WL 7145638 (Dec 21, 2024) (unpublished), the Court of Appeals struck down a probation condition that prohibited the defendant from using medical marijuana, despite his valid prescription under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA). The court held that while trial courts have broad discretion in crafting probation terms, those conditions must bear a reasonable relationship to the offense and the goal of rehabilitation.

“The trial court abused its discretion in imposing a probation condition that categorically banned lawful conduct under state law, without any record evidence linking marijuana use to the defendant’s criminal behavior or risk of recidivism.” – Goodwin, at *3.

This decision strengthens the defense position when challenging overbroad or arbitrary probation terms, especially in drug-related or nonviolent cases.

2. Prosecutors Must Disclose Exculpatory Witnesses — Even Post-Arraignment

In People v Andino, Mich App; 2025 WL 1198502 (Mar 13, 2025) (unpublished), the Court reversed a conviction after prosecutors failed to disclose a witness who told police the defendant was not the shooter. The prosecution argued that since the statement was “unsolicited” and occurred during a follow-up interview, it wasn't material. The Court disagreed.

“The prosecution’s failure to disclose a witness who provided directly exculpatory information deprived defendant of a fair trial and violated Brady principles.” – Andino, at *4.

The case is a reminder that Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963), is alive and well — and that Michigan courts are increasingly willing to reverse convictions where prosecutors fail to turn over helpful evidence, even when they argue it’s “not their fault.”

3. Sentencing Must Be Grounded in Record Evidence

In People v Barner, Mich App; 2024 WL 8697812 (Jan 9, 2024) (unpublished), the Court of Appeals vacated a sentence enhancement after the trial court relied on unsupported allegations about the defendant’s gang affiliation. While sentencing judges have discretion to consider various factors, those factors must be supported by the record.

“The trial court’s finding that defendant was a gang member, which increased his sentence by 24 months, was not supported by any evidence admitted at trial or during sentencing.” – Barner, at *2.

This decision is useful for defense counsel who wish to challenge “inflation” at sentencing — when judges add time based on speculation or unverified information from police reports.

Final Thoughts

These recent cases show that the Michigan Court of Appeals is increasingly attentive to procedural fairness, evidentiary standards, and the limits of state power. If you're facing charges, or if you've been convicted and think your trial wasn't fair, you may have a strong argument on appeal — especially if your rights were violated in ways similar to those in Goodwin, Andino, or Barner.

If you or a loved one is charged with a crime in Michigan, contact me today. I stay up-to-date on the latest legal developments and will fight for your rights!