Motion to dismiss; A trial court’s failure to state its rationale for a decision

Holding that the trial court failed to provide a basis for its decision on the record, the court vacated the order dismissing defendant’s charges with prejudice and remanded. Following a road-rage incident, he was charged with felonious assault, and malicious destruction of property ($200 or more but less than $1,000). “On the morning of trial, the prosecution moved for an adjournment. In response, defendant moved to dismiss the charges, and the trial court granted the motion, dismissing the charges with prejudice. On appeal, the prosecution claimed this was an abuse of discretion.” It contended “the trial court exceeded its authority and abused its discretion by dismissing the charges with prejudice over the prosecutor’s objection.” Here, neither the basis for his “motion nor the trial court’s rationale for granting it is discernible from the record.” It was “clear that the prosecutor sought an adjournment before jury selection began, citing various discovery issues. Although the trial court expressed frustration with that request, it also stated that it was ‘not blaming’ the prosecutor and appeared inclined to grant the adjournment. After the court clerk inquired about scheduling, defense counsel requested a dismissal.” The trial “court then held a brief bench conference and summarily dismissed the case.” The record contained “no articulated rationale for either the motion or the order.” On appeal, defendant offered “several possible explanations for the dismissal.” He suggested “that the trial court dismissed the charges for ‘ridiculousness,’ which he claims ‘can be seen as the trial court upholding [his] Constitutional Right to Substantive Due Process’ because bringing this ‘disjointed, tangled web of a case to bar was an arbitrary use of government power.’” He also asserted “that the dismissal resulted from the prosecutor’s ‘failure to comply with discovery,’ and relie[d] on MCR 2.504 to argue that dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate remedy for a discovery violation.” Defendant’s claims were “not entirely without merit. If, as defendant contends, the prosecution exceeded its authority by filing the charges, the [trial] court was permitted to dismiss the charges over the prosecutor’s objection as an ultra vires act.” The trial “court could also dismiss the charges if prosecutorial misconduct deprived defendant of due process.” Although he “erroneously relies on MCR 2.504 for his discovery violation claim, the applicable rule for discovery violations in criminal proceedings— MCR 6.201(J)—permits a trial court to remedy such violations ‘as it deems just under the circumstances.’ If the trial court dismissed the charges on any of those bases, the court may have acted within its discretion in dismissing the charges over the prosecutor’s objection.” The court held that even “so, the trial court’s rationale for dismissal is not apparent from the record. Without insight into the grounds for the motion or the court’s reasoning, this Court cannot determine whether the trial court’s decision ‘falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.’”