motion to dismiss criminal case example michigan

#Motion to dismiss criminal case example michigan trial#

In observance of the tenet spelled out in Crespo, the Court in Martinez v. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. The court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it.

#Motion to dismiss criminal case example michigan trial#

Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the court.

Mogul laid down this basic precept in this wise: “The rule is that once an information is filed in court, any disposition of the case, be it dismissal, conviction, or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of the court. 177583, 27 February 2009, the Supreme Court further ruled that once an Information is filed in court, the disposition of said case lies in the discretion of the trial court. Court of First Instance of Rizal, 116 SCRA 93). It bears repeating that the judiciary lives up to its mission by vitalizing and not denigrating constitutional rights. The Judge or fiscal, therefore, should not go on with the prosecution in the hope that the credible evidence might later turn up during the trial for this would be a flagrant violation of a basic right which the court is created to uphold.

Although there is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable cause since the same must be decided in light of the conditions obtaining in given situations and its existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examinations, such as finding should not disregards the facts before the judge nor run counter to the clear dictates of reasons (See La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. It is therefore, imperative upon the fiscal or the judge as the case may be, to relieve the accused from the pain of going through a trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that no probable cause exists to from a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court declared in Salonga that : L-59524 February 18, 1985, where the Supreme Court ruled that where there was no prima facie case against a person sought to be charged with a crime, the judge or fiscal, therefore, should not go on with the prosecution in the hope that some credible evidence might later turn up during trial, for this would be a flagrant violation of a basic right which the courts are created to uphold. The Supreme Court has upheld this in its decisions. These standards require that a finding of probable cause must be reasonable and have the basis in order to justify going on with a criminal trial. Rather, he relies on the calculus of common sense of which all reasonable men have abundance. It ought to be emphasized that in determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of our technical rules of evidence of which his knowledge is nil. The terms are legally synonymous and their reference is not a person with training in the law such as a prosecutor or a judge but to the average man on the street. Other jurisdictions utilize the term man of reasonable caution or the term ordinarily prudent and cautious man. Continuing accretions of case law reiterate that they are facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. Probable cause to warrant arrest is not an opaque concept in our jurisdiction. “An arrest without probable cause is an unreasonable seizure of a person and violates the privacy of persons which ought not to be intruded by the State. against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature. The need to find probable cause is dictated by the Bill of Rights which protects “the rights of the people to be secure in their persons. Arrests must have probable cause otherwise it is a violation of the Bill of Rights.