Successive motion for relief from judgment; MCR 6.502(G); Good cause; MCR 6.508(D)(3); Newly discovered evidence; People v Cress; Whether a different result was probable at retrial; People v Johnson; Credibility of witnesses; Shann v Shann

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s successive motion for relief from judgment without holding an evidentiary hearing. She was convicted of first-degree felony murder after her 14-year-old daughter died of smoke inhalation from a fire at their home. In a prior appeal, the court affirmed her conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court denied leave. The trial court denied her motion for relief from judgment. The court again affirmed and the Supreme Court again denied leave. The federal district court denied defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The trial court denied her successive motion for relief from judgment filed in 2021. In the present appeal, the court agreed with her that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her successive motion for relief from judgment without holding an evidentiary hearing. The court found it “exceeded its gatekeeping role by prematurely denying” her motion without such a hearing. “An evidentiary hearing would have permitted defendant to address the trial court’s concerns engendered by” her proposed expert’s (L, a fire investigator) “report, and would have aided in determining whether [L’s] expert testimony would make a difference at retrial.” Further, under the circumstances, “the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing before making its ultimate determination regarding defendant’s false-confession evidence.” An evidentiary hearing would have allowed resolution of a variety of issues. Vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.