People v. Hana
Michigan Supreme Court
443 Mich. 202, 504 N.W.2d 166 (1993)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Police arrested Hana (defendant) in a drug raid, leading the state to charge Hana with possession of cocaine. Officers advised Hana of his Miranda rights, but Hana made incriminating statements to officers. The state (plaintiff) moved to waive jurisdiction, and the case was heard in probate court in two hearings. In the waiver hearing on probable cause (Phase I hearing), the probate court found that probable cause existed to believe that Hana committed the crimes. In the waiver hearing on whether Hana should be tried as a juvenile (Phase II hearing), the probate court heard testimony from the police officers about the incriminating statements Hana made after his arrest. Hana also offered testimony from character witnesses and his psychologists. The probate court waived jurisdiction over Hana, who then appealed the waiver decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the constitutional rights applicable in criminal proceedings extended to the Phase II or dispositional phase of a waiver hearing. The Michigan Court of Appeals found the waiver was effectively an enhancement of a defendant’s sentence, which requires a court to apply the same constitutional protections for criminal trials to the Phase II hearing. The state appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Riley, J.)
Dissent (Cavanagh, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
