Motion for pretrial release; MCL 765.5; MCR 6.106(B)(1) & (H)(1); Whether a statute prevails over a conflicting court rule; People v. Watkins; McDougall v. Schanz

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court vacated the Court of Appeals order (which had vacated the trial court’s order granting defendant bond), and remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on reconsideration granted. The court held that the “Court of Appeals erred in its analysis of the trial court’s order . . . .” The court noted that the “trial court acknowledged MCL 765.5, which provides that ‘[n]o person charged with treason or murder shall be admitted to bail if the proof of his guilt is evident or the presumption great.’” However, it declined to apply the statute based on its determination “that MCR 6.106(B)(1)(a) gave it the discretion to grant bond regardless of the strength of the prosecution’s case. Consequently, it did not determine whether ‘the proof of his guilt is evident or the presumption great.’ In the trial court’s view, the statute conflicted with the court rule, and the court rule prevailed. This was the pivotal issue on appeal, but the Court of Appeals failed to address it. Instead, the Court of Appeals usurped the trial court’s role and made its own determination that ‘the proof of his guilt is evident or the presumption great.’” The court directed the Court of Appeals to address whether the statute conflicts with the court rule, and if so, whether it prevails over the court rule. It also directed the Court of Appeals to expedite its decision in this case. If it finds that MCL 765.5 prevails, “it shall remand the case to the trial court to assess whether ‘the proof of [the defendant’s] guilt is evident or the presumption great’ for purposes of” the statute. If it find that MCR 6.106(B)(1) prevails, “it shall address whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting the defendant’s request for pretrial release.”