Failure to adjourn an evidentiary hearing; MCR 2.503; “Good cause”; People v Grace; “Satisfactory, sound or valid reason”; People v Buie; Promotion of justice

Holding that “there was a satisfactory, sound, and valid reason” to adjourn the evidentiary hearing at issue, the court reversed the trial court’s denial of the prosecution’s motion to adjourn, and its grant of defendant’s motions to suppress the evidence and dismiss the case. He was charged with possession with intent to deliver more than 50 grams, but less than 450 grams, of heroin or fentanyl. He “moved to suppress evidence of the drugs, and an evidentiary hearing was scheduled on the motion. At the hearing, the key witness involved in the search and seizure of the drugs,” a state trooper (S) “failed to appear due to an alleged emergency that required [his] expertise as a canine handler.” The court noted that in Grace, it “appeared to suggest that ‘good cause’ for an adjournment is established under MCR 2.503(B)(1) when, in the context of a request made because of an absent witness, the criteria in MCR 2.503(C) are satisfied,” and it found they were met here. It further noted that, in Buie, the Michigan Supreme Court “defined ‘good cause’ as a ‘satisfactory, sound or valid reason.’” The court determined there was “a compelling reason” for adjournment here. There was “an emergency situation in which [S’s] skills as a canine handler were required. The trial court did not find otherwise and, in fact,” accepted another trooper’s “explanation of the active event in which [S] found himself. The trial court reasoned that the trooper improperly prioritized one work obligation” over another. The court found that the flaw in this reasoning was that the trial “court treated the emergency as if it were the equivalent of an ordinary event in” S’s daily work life. It also “rejected adjourning the evidentiary hearing because it was unknown whether a short or long adjournment was necessary. But there was no exploration whatsoever into how long a delay would be necessary had the hearing been adjourned. The emergency was likely short-lived, hours versus days or weeks, and even had it gone longer, authorities may have been able to procure the assistance of another canine handler.” The trial was not scheduled to start for over three weeks. The court held “that the trial court’s refusal to adjourn the hearing and the concomitant decisions to suppress the evidence and dismiss the case were not reasonable or principled[.]” It directed the trial court on remand to schedule an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress.