People of Michigan v. Ricardo Warren Edmonds

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a similar condition did not constitute an impermissible delegation, though basing its conclusion on the fact that “nothing in the record . . . show[ed that] the district court disclaimed ultimate authority over [the defendant’s] supervision”
• noting that court has previ- ously held that “911 calls that are made to ‘enable police to identify and apprehend an armed, threatening individual . . . [are] not testimonial in nature and thus d[o] not implicate the Confrontation Clause’”
• upholding condition requiring defendant to inform a person of a risk the defendant posed if defendant’s probation officer determined defendant posed a risk; scope of condition could be ascertained with “sufficient ease”
• finding plain error “because the district court did not explain its basis for the [alcohol-restriction] condition, Robertson’s offense did not involve alcohol, and the record [did] not show that Robertson was alcohol or drug dependent”
• finding an ongoing emergency where “911 caller breathlessly described the shooting by saying Robertson ‘just now shot at Urva’ and pleaded with the dispatcher, saying ‘Hurry, hurry! He’s going to come back with a gun!’”
• “Robertson challenges [on direct appeal] two of the district court’s evidentiary rulings, its denial of a requested jury instruction, and its imposition of three supervised release conditions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).