Michigan Court of Appeals· 3/20/2008

People v. Unger

Citations

749 N.W.2d 272
278 Mich. App. 210

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing that “there are times when it is better not to object and draw attention to an improper comment” (quotation marks and citation omitted)
holding that the exclusion of evidence under MRE 402 and MRE 703 did not deny the defendant the right to present a defense
concluding that the trial court’s instructions were curative because the prosecutor’s improper statements were “relatively brief and likely did not deflect the jury’s attention”
concluding that the trial court’s instructions were curative because the prosecution’s improper statements were “relatively brief and likely did not deflect the jury’s attention”
recognizing that while not a required element of an offense, motive is a relevant consideration in a murder prosecution
recognizing that an otherwise improper prosecutorial remark might be proper when made in response to an argument by the defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Whitbeck, Jansen, Davis

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

127 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

96 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named People v. Unger

12 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.