Motion to strike the prosecution’s witness list & exhibits for noncompliance with a pretrial order & MCR 6.201(A) (mandatory disclosure); Motion for nolle prosequi; People v Guthrie; A trial court’s discretion to deny motions for nolle prosequi; People v Walls

Noting that “the trial court did not seem to fully understand defendant’s position or the extent of its discretion” in handling the prosecutor’s motion for nolle prosequi, the court vacated the order and remanded. Defendant was originally charged with OWI causing death and reckless driving causing death. Before trial, he moved to strike the prosecution’s witness list and exhibits, alleging noncompliance with the trial court’s pretrial order and MCR 6.201(A). “The prosecution responded by filing a motion for nolle prosequi, purportedly for the purpose of reassessing the charges.” The trial court granted its motion. It subsequently granted defendant’s motion for reconsideration but reaffirmed its decision to grant the prosecution’s motion without prejudice. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court erred by failing to either deny the motion for nolle prosequi or grant it with prejudice because the prosecution filed the motion in order to circumvent a contrary ruling as to discovery violations. The court noted it “is clear that trial courts have some, albeit limited, discretion to deny motions for nolle prosequi. What is less clear is whether the trial court in this case understood the full extent of its discretion.” The trial court suggested “its only two options were to grant the motion as requested or to grant it with prejudice.” First, given that the prosecutor “brought the motion, granting it with prejudice would not be appropriate.” More importantly, the trial court “failed to recognize that it had limited discretion to simply deny the motion if it believed the prosecution was abusing its power, was acting in a manner that was unconstitutional—i.e., in violation of defendant’s due process rights, or if it believed the action was ultra vires.” Further, it “erroneously stated that defendant ‘agreed the nolle must be granted’ and advocated for granting it with prejudice. On the contrary, defense counsel made it very clear that he wanted to deny the motion and proceed to trial.” Finally, the trial court described the prosecutor’s “actions as ‘clear legal maneuvering and gamesmanship’ but then noted that the record was insufficient ‘to make a ruling on vindictiveness.’” It was unclear from this statement whether the trial “court was simply unpersuaded that the prosecution’s actions were vindictive or if it believed that the record was legally insufficient to support such a finding. If [it] was attempting to communicate the latter, we disagree and conclude that the record is sufficient to support such a finding if the trial court were so persuaded.”