Motion to adjourn; Forensic expert unavailability; MCR 2.503(C)(2); People v Jackson; MCR 2.506(G)(3); MCR 2.503(D)(1)

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court reversed a Court of Appeals order, holding that, contrary to the Court of Appeals’ ruling, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the prosecution’s motion to adjourn trial due to a forensic expert’s unavailability. The court concluded that the trial court reasonably determined the prosecution “failed to act with the requisite diligence after the witness failed to acknowledge receipt of the subpoena that plaintiff attempted to serve electronically.” The court noted that MCR 2.506(G)(3) directs “that when ‘no confirmation correspondence is provided within 2 business days after email or facsimile transmission,’ the subpoena ‘must be served’ in the traditional manner.” The prosecution failed to “take this mandatory step” and also did not “reach out to the witness to inquire into her availability to testify at defendant’s trial. Months passed before [it] discovered that the witness was unavailable. By that point, jury selection was already underway.” The court further concluded that the trial court “reasonably declined to invoke MCR 2.503(D)(1), which confers discretion to grant an adjournment ‘to promote the cause of justice.’” The trial court found that adjourning the trial would add several “months of delay to a case that has already been pending for more than two years.” The court held that the Court of Appeals erred to the extent “it suggested that the trial court was required to grant plaintiff’s motion to adjourn so long as it did not result in a violation of defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. In short, nothing in MCR 2.503(C)(2) or MCR 2.503(D)(1) required the trial court to adjourn a trial that was already underway.” Remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.