Cases

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 31, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment holding that the exclusion of the victim's blood alcohol content was not harmless error, and we REMAND this case to that court for reconsideration of the issue. While the Co

Bernstein, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent in part from this Court's opinion, which affirms the disposition of the Court of Appeals on other grounds. This case deals with three separate pieces of evidence: (1) the complainant DM's pregnancy; (2) DM's subsequent abortion; and (3) DM's lack of other sexual partners during the relevant time period. The trial cour

By order of May 28, 2019, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Lenawee County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after the date of this order. The application for leave to appeal remains pending.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 7, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. Viviano, J., did not participate due to a familial relationship with the presiding circuit court judge in this case.

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's April 30, 2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to remand is DENIED.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 1, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 22, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant's motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion to hold application in abeyance is DENIED.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 25, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 28, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are *129not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the *252September 13, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on leave granted, of (1) whether the prosecutor breached an agreement with the defendant to take no position regarding a specific sentence within a sentencing range when the prosecutor recommended a sente

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 5, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, *844and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 2, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 19, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 9, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant's motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, FOR PUBLICATION July 10, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee,

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 9, 2018 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).