Michigan evidence practice is organized under the Michigan Rules of Evidence. Relevance starts at Mich. R. Evid. 401, 403; hearsay starts at Mich. R. Evid. 801, 802. That is what separates Michigan evidence law from a generic national summary. Read Michigan Rules of Evidence before the background sections below. Authenticity is a separate fight under Mich. R. Evid. 901, 902. Depositions at trial: Mich. Ct. R. 2.310 and 2.311 govern civil depositions and trial use. Mich. Ct. R. 6.201 addresses criminal discovery; deposition testimony at trial requires Mich. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) when the witness is unavailable.
Character evidence
Character evidence in Michigan is governed by Mich. R. Evid. 404, 405. The default rule is familiar: evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. The same body of law then carves out the classic exceptions — essential-element character, accused-opens-the-door reputation or opinion, and other-acts evidence offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
Other-acts notice, 403 balancing, and limiting instructions do most of the real work. In criminal cases, prosecutors who dump prior misconduct without a specific non-propensity theory invite reversal; defense counsel who open the door to good-character testimony without anticipating rebuttal create the very propensity inference the rules were designed to police.
Michigan character-evidence opinions
People v. Vandervliet
People v. Vandervliet, 444 Mich. 52 (1993)
…examples of situations in which the general rule excluding character evidence, MRE 404(a), is not offended because the evidence is probative of some fact other than the defendant’s criminal propensity. People v Golochowicz, was a homicide case in which "the only conceivable justification for admission of . . . similar-acts evidence [was] to prove the identity of the perpetrato…
People v. Vandervliet is worth reading on Michigan character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "MRE 404(a), is not offended because the evidence is probative of some fact other than the defendant’s criminal propensity. People v Golochowicz, was a homicide case in which 'the only conceivable justification for admission of . . ." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
People of Michigan v. Frederick James Mardlin
People of Michigan v. Frederick James Mardlin, 487 Mich. 609 (2010)
…inferences about his character. Indeed, the evidence was noncharacter evidence admissible under the theory of logical relevance known as the doctrine of chances. Accordingly, we reverse the May 5, 2009 opinion of the Court of Appeals,1 reinstate defendant’s convictions, and remand to the Court of Appeals for that Court to consider defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal. I. F…
Practitioners open People of Michigan v. Frederick James Mardlin when Michigan character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Indeed, the evidence was noncharacter evidence admissible under the theory of logical relevance known as the doctrine of chances." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
People v. Knox
People v. Knox, 469 Mich. 502 (2004)
…irrelevant to the prosecution’s case-in-chief, was improper character evidence under MRE 404(a), and did not serve one of the non-character purposes listed in MRE 404(b). Character evidence related to witnesses is governed under MRE 404(a)(4) by MRE 607, 608, and 609. MRE 608(a) limits opinion and reputation evidence to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness after the cha…
People v. Knox is worth reading on Michigan character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "MRE 404(a), and did not serve one of the non-character purposes listed in MRE 404(b). Character evidence related to witnesses is governed under MRE 404(a)(4) by MRE 607, 608, and 609." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
People v. Starr
People v. Starr, 457 Mich. 490 (1998)
…enerally, Michigan's Rules of Evidence proscribe the use of character evidence to prove action in conformity therewith. MRE 404.[6] Character evidence includes evidence of other crimes, acts, or wrongs, such as, in this case, the half-sister's testimony that defendant sexually abused her over a period of years and several years before trial. This Court has previously explained…
On character evidence, People v. Starr speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "Michigan's Rules of Evidence proscribe the use of character evidence to prove action in conformity therewith. MRE 404." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell John WILDER, Defendant-Appellant.
…ee MRE 404(a)(1) (prohibiting the prosecution from offering character evidence of an accused to prove action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except on rebuttal if the accused has first offered evidence of his or her good character). Defendant in this case, however, never opened the door by eliciting testimony as to his good character from the **67 defense witn…
Michigan opinions such as PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell John WILDER, Defendant-Appellant. are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "MRE 404(a)(1) (prohibiting the prosecution from offering character evidence of an accused to prove action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except on rebuttal if the accused has first offered evidence of his or her good character)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Wlosinski v. Cohn — Borrello, J., dissenting
Wlosinski v. Cohn — Borrello, J., dissenting, 269 Mich. App. 303 (2006)
…ot precluded by MRE 404(b)(1) because such evidence was not character evidence. MRE 404(b)(1) prohibits the use of evidence to prove a person’s character to show that the person acted in *322conformity with that character on a particular occasion, but does not preclude using such evidence for other relevant purposes. People v Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich 43, 56; 614 NW2d 888…
Practitioners open Wlosinski v. Cohn — Borrello, J., dissenting when Michigan character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "MRE 404(b)(1) because such evidence was not character evidence." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Hearsay: start with the definition
Most hearsay objections in Michigan are won or lost on the definition, not on an exception. Under Mich. R. Evid. 801, 802, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Non-hearsay purposes — verbal acts, effect on the listener, notice, circumstantial evidence of state of mind, and impeachment — remain available when the proponent can articulate them without asking the jury to believe the declarant.
Layered hearsay (hearsay within hearsay) requires an exception or exclusion for each layer. Machine-generated data and non-assertive conduct sit outside the hearsay definition in FRE-aligned jurisdictions, but they still need authenticity and, often, expert or business-records foundations.
Michigan hearsay opinions
People v. Payne
People v. Payne, 285 Mich. App. 181 (2009)
…06-011944-FC 6 because the reports constituted inadmissible hearsay. Defendant asserts that the reports were not admissible pursuant to MRE 803(6) as business records. He also argues that because foundation witness Allisa Gindlesperger did not prepare the reports herself, she was unqualified to provide foundation testimony as a “custodian or other qualified witness.” We conclud…
People v. Payne is worth reading on Michigan hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "FC 6 because the reports constituted inadmissible hearsay. Defendant asserts that the reports were not admissible pursuant to MRE 803(6) as business records." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
PEOPLE v. MAHONE
PEOPLE v. MAHONE, 294 Mich. App. 208 (2011)
…court erred by admitting several instances of inadmissible hearsay evidence, thereby requiring a new trial. We review preserved evidentiary issues for an abuse of discretion. People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 549; 581 NW2d 654 (1998). An abuse of discretion occurs when the court chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. People v Unger,…
PEOPLE v. MAHONE is worth reading on Michigan hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "We review preserved evidentiary issues for an abuse of discretion. People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 549; 581 NW2d 654 (1998). An abuse of discretion occurs when the court chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
People v. Gursky
People v. Gursky, 486 Mich. 596 (2010)
…ually abusing his girlfriend's child. At trial, the child's hearsay statements to a third party were admitted over defendant's objection. Those statements, which were made when the child first revealed the allegations of abuse, contained all the details of the alleged assaults and were used at trial to corroborate the child's testimony. Defendant appealed, arguing that the stat…
People v. Gursky is worth reading on Michigan hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "At trial, the child's hearsay statements to a third party were admitted over defendant's objection." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
People of Michigan v. Barry Davis Shaw
People of Michigan v. Barry Davis Shaw, 315 Mich. App. 668 (2016)
…Mich 231, 243; 733 NW2d 713 (2007). A. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO HEARSAY Defendant argues that his counsel’s performance fell below reasonable professional norms because, among other reasons, his attorney failed to object to hearsay testimony offered by five different witnesses, each of whom recounted statements made to them by the complainant in which she told them that defendant h…
On hearsay, People of Michigan v. Barry Davis Shaw speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "Mich 231, 243; 733 NW2d 713 (2007). A. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO HEARSAY Defendant argues that his counsel’s performance fell below reasonable professional norms because, among other reasons, his attorney failed to object to hearsay testimony offered by five different witnesses, each" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
People v. Sanford; People v. Gardner — Ryan, J., concurring
People v. Sanford; People v. Gardner — Ryan, J., concurring, 402 Mich. 460 (1978)
…efendants by Anderson at the billiard hall was inadmissible hearsay at the time of this trial. In Poe, the Court held that it was error to admit police testimony that two witnesses who identified defendant at trial had made an earlier, positive extrajudicial identification of him. Error was also *495found in the admission of police line-up sheets containing notations of what th…
On hearsay, People v. Sanford; People v. Gardner — Ryan, J., concurring speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "Anderson at the billiard hall was inadmissible hearsay at the time of this trial. In Poe, the Court held that it was error to admit police testimony that two witnesses who identified defendant at trial had made an earlier, positive extrajudicial identification of him." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
People v. Riley — Kelly, J., dissenting
People v. Riley — Kelly, J., dissenting, 465 Mich. 442 (2001)
…nney’s changed account of Ware’s statement was inadmissible hearsay and that, without it, there was insufficient evidence of first-degree murder.1 Waiver requires some affirmative act of approval, whereas forfeiture is the failure to object. People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215; 612 NW2d 144 (2000), quoting People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 762-763, n 7; 597 NW2d 130 (1999), quotin…
Practitioners open People v. Riley — Kelly, J., dissenting when Michigan hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Ware’s statement was inadmissible hearsay and that, without it, there was insufficient evidence of first-degree murder.1 Waiver requires some affirmative act of approval, whereas forfeiture is the failure to object." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Solomon v. Shuell
Solomon v. Shuell, 435 Mich. 104 (1990)
…er either MRE 803(6), the business records exception to the hearsay rule, or MRE 803(8), the public records hearsay exception. The second question is whether the jury was properly instructed on the so-called rescue doctrine. We would hold that the police reports were improperly admitted into evidence and that the jury was improperly instructed on the rescue doctrine. We therefo…
Practitioners open Solomon v. Shuell when Michigan hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "MRE 803(6), the business records exception to the hearsay rule, or MRE 803(8), the public records hearsay exception. The second question is whether the jury was properly instructed on the so-called rescue doctrine." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Party admissions
Statements of an opposing party are among the most important routes around the hearsay bar. Michigan treats them under Mich. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Nothing about the statement need be against interest, contemporaneous, or based on personal knowledge — the theory is adversarial, not reliability-based. A party cannot complain that his own words are unreliable when offered against him.
Scope questions dominate practice: the party's own statement; adopted statements (including silence in circumstances where a reasonable person would deny); statements by authorized speakers; agent or employee statements on matters within the scope of the relationship; and, in criminal conspiracy cases, coconspirator statements during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. A defendant generally cannot introduce his own exculpatory out-of-court statement as a "party admission" against himself — the rule runs one way.
Michigan party-admission opinions
Wapeka B Barnett v. Cesar D Hidalgo Md
Wapeka B Barnett v. Cesar D Hidalgo Md, 478 Mich. 151 (2007)
…ly admitted as substantive evidence because they constitute admissions by a party opponent, and as impeachment evidence because *154they constitute prior inconsistent statements of witnesses. Regarding the second issue, we hold on the basis of MCL 600.2957 and MCL 600.6304 that the parties were permitted to refer to the involvement of nonparties and, therefore, the jury could h…
Michigan opinions such as Wapeka B Barnett v. Cesar D Hidalgo Md are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "Regarding the second issue, we hold on the basis of MCL 600.2957 and MCL 600." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
PEOPLE v. McCRAY
PEOPLE v. McCRAY, 245 Mich. App. 631 (2001)
…dant testified at trial, was admissible as a party-opponent admission under MRE 801(d)(2)(C) and could be used to impeach the defendant. Von Everett, supra at 624. This Court reasoned that admission of the alibi notice for the purpose of impeachment did not infringe the defendant’s right to remain silent where the defendant had already testified regarding an inconsistent alibi,…
Practitioners open PEOPLE v. McCRAY when Michigan party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "MRE 801(d)(2)(C) and could be used to impeach the defendant. Von Everett, supra at 624." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Merrow v. Bofferding
Merrow v. Bofferding, 458 Mich. 617 (1998)
…missible for impeachment purposes under MRE 613(b) or as an admission of a party opponent under MRE 801(d)(2). Because we conclude that the contested portion of the medical record was not admissible and that its admission was not harmless error, we affirm the Court of Appeals decision. I Plaintiff Greg Merrow initiated this negligence action after he sustained a serious permane…
On party admissions, Merrow v. Bofferding speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "MRE 613(b) or as an admission of a party opponent under MRE 801(d)(2). Because we conclude that the contested portion of the medical record was not admissible and that its admission was not harmless error, we affirm the Court of Appeals decision." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
People v. Barrett — Cavanagh, J., dissenting
People v. Barrett — Cavanagh, J., dissenting, 480 Mich. 125 (2008)
…ncident was the decedent himself, so the case hinged on the admission of the decedent’s statements to his son. The son witnessed his father limping home with a drawn face, so he asked his father what was the matter. Id. at 492. The son proffered testimony that the decedent told him that “ ‘while he was in the act of alighting from the car one foot was on the running board and t…
Practitioners open People v. Barrett — Cavanagh, J., dissenting when Michigan party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The son witnessed his father limping home with a drawn face, so he asked his father what was the matter. Id. at 492." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Shields v. Reddo
Shields v. Reddo, 432 Mich. 761 (1989)
…atement of a party’s employee is admissible as a nonhearsay admission of the party only if the statement meets the usual test of agency, that is, it was made by the employee while acting in the scope of employment. Uniform Rules of Evidence, 13 ULA, Rule 801(d)(2)(iv), p 682. The Michigan Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Evidence have liberalized the traditional rule…
On party admissions, Shields v. Reddo speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "Uniform Rules of Evidence, 13 ULA, Rule 801(d)(2)(iv), p 682." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
People v. Moncure
People v. Moncure, 94 Mich. App. 252 (1979)
…cution argued the statement was admissible under the "party admission” rule set forth in MRE 801 d(2). The trial court sustained the objection on the grounds that, because Ms. Shields could not remember the dates when the statements were made, an insufficient foundation was laid for admission into evidence. Defendant contends on appeal that even though the testimony was disallo…
People v. Moncure is worth reading on Michigan party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "MRE 801 d(2). The trial court sustained the objection on the grounds that, because Ms. Shields could not remember the dates when the statements were made, an insufficient foundation was laid for admission into evidence." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
A concrete Michigan scenario
Here is one way the Michigan pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.
A lawyer in Michigan wants to offer a medical record, a party email, and a statement the declarant made while believing death was imminent.
- Clear relevance and unfair prejudice under Mich. R. Evid. 401, 403.
- If the email is the opposing party's, test Mich. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) before the hearsay definition in Mich. R. Evid. 801, 802.
- For the medical record, lay the business-records foundation in Mich. R. Evid. 803(6) and the treatment purpose in Mich. R. Evid. 803(4).
- For the deathbed statement, meet Mich. R. Evid. 804(b)(2), then authenticate every exhibit under Mich. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Michigan keeps hearsay, character, and authenticity on different rules inside the Michigan Rules of Evidence. Winning one does not win the others.
Business records
The business-records exception under Mich. R. Evid. 803(6) is the everyday path for medical charts, employment files, bank statements, and maintenance logs. The foundation requires a record made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; and made as a regular practice. A custodian or other qualified witness (or a qualifying certification where the jurisdiction allows it) lays the foundation. The opponent may still attack lack of trustworthiness when the source or method of preparation indicates unreliability — litigation-driven reports are the classic failure mode.
Do not confuse authenticity with the business-records exception. You still need to show the exhibit is what you claim it is; the hearsay exception then answers why the out-of-court assertions inside it may be considered for their truth.
Michigan business-records opinions
People v. Payne
People v. Payne, 285 Mich. App. 181 (2009)
…t the reports were not admissible pursuant to MRE 803(6) as business records. He also argues that because foundation witness Allisa Gindlesperger did not prepare the reports herself, she was unqualified to provide foundation testimony as a “custodian or other qualified witness.” We conclude that the reports constituted inadmissible hearsay, and were admitted in error. At trial…
On business records, People v. Payne speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "MRE 803(6) as business records. He also argues that because foundation witness Allisa Gindlesperger did not prepare the reports herself, she was unqualified to provide foundation testimony as a “custodian or other qualified witness." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
PEOPLE v. McDANIEL
PEOPLE v. McDANIEL, 469 Mich. 409 (2003)
…t the evidence was admissible under MRE 803(6) and (8), the business records and public records exceptions to the hearsay rule. 2 In a divided decision, the Court of *412 Appeals affirmed on the basis that the report was admissible as a public record under MRE 803(8). The Court declined to rule on the report’s admissibility under MRE 803(6). The defendant has sought leave to ap…
PEOPLE v. McDANIEL is worth reading on Michigan business records because the court put the point in its own words: "MRE 803(6) and (8), the business records and public records exceptions to the hearsay rule. 2 In a divided decision, the Court of *412 Appeals affirmed on the basis that the report was admissible as a public record under MRE 803(8)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Solomon v. Shuell
Solomon v. Shuell, 435 Mich. 104 (1990)
…roperly admitted into evidence under either MRE 803(6), the business records exception to the hearsay rule, or MRE 803(8), the public records hearsay exception. The second question is whether the jury was properly instructed on the so-called rescue doctrine. We would hold that the police reports were improperly admitted into evidence and that the jury was improperly instructed…
Michigan opinions such as Solomon v. Shuell are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "MRE 803(6), the business records exception to the hearsay rule, or MRE 803(8), the public records hearsay exception. The second question is whether the jury was properly instructed on the so-called rescue doctrine." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
People v. Jambor (On Remand)
People v. Jambor (On Remand), 273 Mich. App. 477 (2007)
…numerated exception. MRE 802. 1. MRE 803(6) MRE 803(6), the business records exception to the hearsay rule, provides in pertinent part that the following are not excluded by the hearsay rule: Records of Regularly Conducted Activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, transactions, occurrences, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, mad…
On business records, People v. Jambor (On Remand) speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "MRE 802. 1. MRE 803(6) MRE 803(6), the business records exception to the hearsay rule, provides in pertinent part that the following are not excluded by the hearsay rule: Records of Regularly Conducted Activity." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Hewitt v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company
Hewitt v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company, 123 Mich. App. 309 (1983)
…information presented no substantial problem with ordinary business records. All participants, including the observer or participant furnishing the information to be recorded, were acting routinely, under a duty of accuracy, with employer reliance on the result, or in short 'in the regular course of business’. If, however; the supplier of the information does not act in the re…
Michigan opinions such as Hewitt v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "All participants, including the observer or participant furnishing the information to be recorded, were acting routinely, under a duty of accuracy, with employer reliance on the result, or in short 'in the regular course of business’." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
People v. Safiedine
People v. Safiedine, 163 Mich. App. 25 (1987)
…d to lay the proper foundation for the admission of certain business records of defendant’s gasoline suppliers, and that the preparers of the business records should have been endorsed as res gestae witnesses and produced at trial. The business records in question were properly admitted pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule, MRE 803(6), which provides:…
On business records, People v. Safiedine speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "d to lay the proper foundation for the admission of certain business records of defendant’s gasoline suppliers, and that the preparers of the business records should have been endorsed as res gestae witnesses and produced at trial. The business records in question were properly a" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
Three present-sense and mental-state exceptions carry most of the remaining traffic in Michigan trial practice.
Excited utterance — Mich. R. Evid. 803(2). A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused. Timing is elastic; composure defeats the exception even minutes after the event, while visible distress can preserve it for hours.
Present sense impression — Mich. R. Evid. 803(1). A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. Contemporaneity is strict — seconds and minutes, not hours — and excitement is not required.
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition — Mich. R. Evid. 803(3). Statements of then-existing state of mind (including intent and plan) come in; statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered generally do not. Intent-to-meet-another-person cases remain the hardest applications.
Declarant unavailable
When the declarant is unavailable under Mich. R. Evid. 804(a), Michigan opens a second suite of exceptions. Unavailability typically includes privilege, refusal to testify despite court order, lack of memory, death or then-existing infirmity, and absence despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance. The proponent bears the burden of proving unavailability with specific facts — a bare assertion that the witness "could not be found" is not enough.
Former testimony under Mich. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) is the workhorse once unavailability is shown: testimony given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, offered against a party who had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross, or redirect. Criminal confrontation analysis runs in parallel and is not satisfied merely because a hearsay exception applies.
Dying declarations
Dying declarations under Mich. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) remain a narrow but decisive exception in homicide and, in many jurisdictions, civil cases involving the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. The foundational showing is the declarant's belief that death was imminent — not that death in fact followed within any particular time — plus a statement concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the impending death. Courts police coaching and narrative expansions aggressively.
Michigan dying-declaration opinions
People v. Taylor
People v. Taylor, 275 Mich. App. 177 (2007)
…for a hearing on this issue is not warranted. Id. *181 II. DYING DECLARATION Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it permitted police officers to testify that Lasater identified defendant as his killer. The record reflects that, within minutes of the shooting of Lasater, police officers responded to a call and entered the house where neighbors said they heard gun…
Practitioners open People v. Taylor when Michigan dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Id. *181 II. DYING DECLARATION Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it permitted police officers to testify that Lasater identified defendant as his killer." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
People v. Orr
People v. Orr, 275 Mich. App. 587 (2007)
…ing once between the eyes, and testimony about Crittendon’s dying declarations, was unnecessary; and, therefore, its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The majority of the testimony regarding the September 8, 2003, shooting was highly probative and was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Officer Lawrence Mitchell gave ext…
On dying declaration, People v. Orr speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "Crittendon’s dying declarations, was unnecessary; and, therefore, its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
PEOPLE v. LONSDALE
PEOPLE v. LONSDALE, 122 Mich. 388 (1899)
…the act. The objection is that it does not appear that the dying declaration was made under a sense of impending death. The decisions upon this subject are many. See People v. Knapp, 26 Mich. 116; People v. Olmstead, 30 Mich. 431; People v. Beverly, 108 Mich. 509; People v. Weaver, Id. 649; People v. Simpson, 48 Mich. 477. The mother of the deceased testified that the daughter…
Michigan opinions such as PEOPLE v. LONSDALE are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "The objection is that it does not appear that the dying declaration was made under a sense of impending death. The decisions upon this subject are many. See People v. Knapp, 26 Mich. 116; People v. Olmstead, 30 Mich. 431; People v. Beverly, 108 Mich. 509; People v. Weaver, Id." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
People v. Stamper
People v. Stamper, 480 Mich. 1 (2007)
…was imminent qualifies for admission as evidence under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule, MRE 804(b)(2). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we affirm defendant’s convictions and hold that a child may have the capacity to be conscious of his own impending death for purposes of the dying declaration exception. We adopt the facts as set forth by the Court of A…
Practitioners open People v. Stamper when Michigan dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "MRE 804(b)(2). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we affirm defendant’s convictions and hold that a child may have the capacity to be conscious of his own impending death for purposes of the dying declaration exception." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
People v. Bryant — Corrigan, J., dissenting
People v. Bryant — Corrigan, J., dissenting, 483 Mich. 132 (2009)
…s, where, although the victim’s statements were likely also dying declarations, the prosecution abandoned this argument in the lower courts. The statements likely would have qualified for admission both as excited utterances and as dying declarations but, under then-existing law, the prosecution needed only to advocate for admission under one theory. It chose the former. After…
Practitioners open People v. Bryant — Corrigan, J., dissenting when Michigan dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The statements likely would have qualified for admission both as excited utterances and as dying declarations but, under then-existing law, the prosecution needed only to advocate for admission under one theory. It chose the former." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
People v. Johnson
People v. Johnson, 334 Mich. 169 (1952)
…Johnson, on appeal, attacks the admission of the so-called “dying declaration,” and the court’s instructions to the jury. He argues denial of due process, the confusion of the trial judge regarding the verdict and the sentence and failure of proof heyond a reasonable doubt. It is fundamental that a “dying declaration” is inadmissible in evidence, unless made under a solemn beli…
Michigan opinions such as People v. Johnson are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "Johnson, on appeal, attacks the admission of the so-called “dying declaration,” and the court’s instructions to the jury. He argues denial of due process, the confusion of the trial judge regarding the verdict and the sentence and failure of proof heyond a reasonable doubt." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under Mich. R. Evid. 803(4) cover medical history, past or present symptoms, and their general cause when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The exception is not limited to treating physicians; statements to nurses, EMTs, and consulting clinicians can qualify when the diagnostic purpose is genuine. Fault and identity remain the usual battleground: "I was hit by a car" is often pertinent; "the light was green" usually is not; abuser identity in child-abuse and domestic-violence cases is heavily litigated.
Michigan medical-statement opinions
People v. Wilkins
People v. Wilkins, 134 Mich. App. 39 (1984)
…: "(4) Statements made for purposes of medical treatment ór medical diagnosis in connection with treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical treatment or medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general *43character of the cause or external source thereof insofar a…
Practitioners open People v. Wilkins when Michigan medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Statements made for purposes of medical treatment ór medical diagnosis in connection with treatment." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
People v. Kosters — Peterson, J., dissenting
People v. Kosters — Peterson, J., dissenting, 175 Mich. App. 748 (1989)
…s: (4) Statements made for purposes of medical treatment or medical diagnosis in connection with treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical treatment or medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as r…
Michigan opinions such as People v. Kosters — Peterson, J., dissenting are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "Statements made for purposes of medical treatment or medical diagnosis in connection with treatment." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
PEOPLE v. Van TASSEL (ON REMAND)
PEOPLE v. Van TASSEL (ON REMAND), 197 Mich. App. 653 (1992)
…he hearsay exception for statements made in connection with medical diagnosis or treatment. Defendant now challenges the court’s ruling, arguing that it was prejudicial error entitling him to a new trial. ii The initial issue raised regarding the applicability of MRE 803(4) is whether the physical examination conducted by Dr. Hickock and the preexamination health interview by n…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, PEOPLE v. Van TASSEL (ON REMAND) speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "Defendant now challenges the court’s ruling, arguing that it was prejudicial error entitling him to a new trial. ii The initial issue raised regarding the applicability of MRE 803(4) is whether the physical examination conducted by Dr." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
In Re FREIBURGER — Borradaile, J., dissenting
In Re FREIBURGER — Borradaile, J., dissenting, 153 Mich. App. 251 (1986)
…ng statements made for the purposes of medical treatment or medical diagnosis in connection with medical treatment, applies to hearsay statements made to a psychiatric social worker. In People v Wilkins, 134 Mich App 39, 43-44; 349 NW2d 815 (1984), regarding statements made by a nine-year-old child to a physician concerning a sexual attack, the Court said: Since there are no Mi…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, In Re FREIBURGER — Borradaile, J., dissenting speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "ng statements made for the purposes of medical treatment or medical diagnosis in connection with medical treatment, applies to hearsay statements made to a psychiatric social worker. In People v Wilkins, 134 Mich App 39, 43-44; 349 NW2d 815 (1984), regarding statements made by a" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Use of depositions at trial
Mich. Ct. R. 2.310 and 2.311 govern civil depositions and trial use. Mich. Ct. R. 6.201 addresses criminal discovery; deposition testimony at trial requires Mich. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) when the witness is unavailable.
Deposition use is always a two-layer problem: procedural permission to read or play the deposition, plus a hearsay path (often former testimony, party admission, or impeachment). Counsel who satisfy the civil or criminal procedure rule but skip the evidence-rule foundation invite a sustained objection; counsel who have a hearsay exception but failed to preserve the deposition under the procedural rule face the same result. Video designations, counter-designations, and completeness objections should be teed up before the jury is seated.
Michigan deposition / former-testimony opinions
People of Michigan v. Junior Fred Blackston
People of Michigan v. Junior Fred Blackston, 481 Mich. 451 (2008)
…12 Vaughn. Alvin Abrams, another inmate, testified during a deposition that he saw Willis help the inmates rape Vaughn. Before the trial in this civil action, Abrams wrote a letter to Willis’s attorney stating that he would not testify at the trial and that he had made some mistakes during his deposition. Subsequently, Abrams was allowed to correct the mistakes made in his depo…
People of Michigan v. Junior Fred Blackston is worth reading on Michigan deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "Vaughn. Alvin Abrams, another inmate, testified during a deposition that he saw Willis help the inmates rape Vaughn." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Lombardo v. Lombardo
Lombardo v. Lombardo, 202 Mich. App. 151 (1993)
…argues that the trial court erred in refusing to admit the deposition testimony of Karen McClatchey into evidence. McClatchey was Robert’s third-grade teacher. Plaintiff’s counsel sought to introduce the deposition testimony on the basis that McClatchey was unavailable to appear personally. The trial court refused to admit the deposition because there was no agreement of couns…
Practitioners open Lombardo v. Lombardo when Michigan deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Karen McClatchey into evidence. McClatchey was Robert’s third-grade teacher. Plaintiff’s counsel sought to introduce the deposition testimony on the basis that McClatchey was unavailable to appear personally." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
People v. Meredith
People v. Meredith, 459 Mich. 62 (1998)
…frontation Clause transgression when the prosecution offers deposition testimony under this rule. See, e.g., Ecker v Scott, 69 F3d 69, 71 (CA 5, 1995); [United States v] Kelly, 892 F2d [255] 261-262 [(CA 3, 1989)]; [United States v] Salim, 855 F2d [944] 954-955 [(CA 2, 1988)]. We join these courts and hold that evidence properly within the former testimony hearsay exception is,…
Practitioners open People v. Meredith when Michigan deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Clause transgression when the prosecution offers deposition testimony under this rule. See, e.g., Ecker v Scott, 69 F3d 69, 71 (CA 5, 1995); [United States v] Kelly, 892 F2d [255] 261-262 [(CA 3, 1989)]; [United States v] Salim, 855 F2d [944] 954-955 [(CA 2, 1988)]." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Shields v. Reddo — Archer, J., dissenting
Shields v. Reddo — Archer, J., dissenting, 432 Mich. 761 (1989)
…Michigan Rules of Evidence regarding the admissibility of a deposition at trial. I would hold that the trial court erred in excluding the deposition because it was properly admissible pursuant to MCR 2.308(A)(1)(b). However, the contents of the deposition should have been subject to consideration under the hearsay rules as provided within MCR 2.308(A). Accordingly, I would reve…
Michigan opinions such as Shields v. Reddo — Archer, J., dissenting are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "Michigan Rules of Evidence regarding the admissibility of a deposition at trial. I would hold that the trial court erred in excluding the deposition because it was properly admissible pursuant to MCR 2.308(A)(1)(b)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Shields v. Grandstaff
Shields v. Grandstaff, 161 Mich. App. 175 (1987)
…f right claiming: I. The trial court erred in excluding the deposition of Patricia Dudash, a barmaid who was employed at Joe’s Moravian Lounge; and II. The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on plaintiff’s requested additional instructions. We affirm. Although somewhat disputed, the essential facts are as follows. On April 10, 1980, defendant Grandstaff went to J…
On deposition / former testimony, Shields v. Grandstaff speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "I. The trial court erred in excluding the deposition of Patricia Dudash, a barmaid who was employed at Joe’s Moravian Lounge; and II. The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on plaintiff’s requested additional instructions. We affirm." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
CHILDRESS v. JUBELT
CHILDRESS v. JUBELT, 45 Mich. App. 181 (1973)
…on presented concerns the propriety of admitting a pretrial deposition at trial. This case was originally set for trial in the summer of 1971. At that time it appeared that one *182of the witnesses would be outside the jurisdiction at the time of trial and the parties agreed to take his deposition de bene esse. The case did not come on for nonjury trial until the fall of 1971.…
On deposition / former testimony, CHILDRESS v. JUBELT speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "This case was originally set for trial in the summer of 1971. At that time it appeared that one *182of the witnesses would be outside the jurisdiction at the time of trial and the parties agreed to take his deposition de bene esse." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
In Re Deposition of Prange
In Re Deposition of Prange, 214 Mich. App. 268 (1995)
214 Mich. App. 268 (1995) 542 N.W.2d 354 In re DEPOSITION OF PRANGE (MICHIGAN EDUCATION SPECIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION v. INSURANCE COMMISSIONER) Docket No. 171303. Michigan Court of Appeals. Submitted September 20, 1994, at Lansing. Decided November 14, 1995, at 9:10 A.M. Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and R. John Wernet, Jr.,…
On deposition / former testimony, In Re Deposition of Prange speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "Mich. App. 268 (1995) 542 N.W.2d 354 In re DEPOSITION OF PRANGE (MICHIGAN EDUCATION SPECIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION v. INSURANCE COMMISSIONER) Docket No. 171303. Michigan Court of Appeals. Submitted September 20, 1994, at Lansing. Decided November 14, 1995, at 9:10 A.M. Frank J." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
Authenticity is not a hearsay doctrine and it is not optional. Under Mich. R. Evid. 901, 902, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Self-authenticating categories — certified public records, newspapers, acknowledged documents, trade inscriptions, and (where adopted) certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity — shorten the path, but most trial exhibits still need a sponsoring witness, distinctive characteristics, chain of custody, or process-or-system evidence.
Michigan automotive, no-fault, and manufacturing litigation depends on authenticated engineering records, medical bills, and surveillance video under Mich. R. Evid. 901–902.
Why authenticity gets its own section in every Michigan trial notebook:
- It is a condition precedent. An unauthenticated exhibit never reaches the relevance, hearsay, or privilege analysis in a useful way — the jury never properly considers it.
- Digital evidence multiplies the failure modes. Screenshots, social-media posts, text threads, and cloud downloads require hash values, account attribution, metadata, or a percipient witness who saw the content created or received.
- Chain of custody is authenticity by another name. Drugs, firearms, biological samples, and seized devices are excluded when the links from seizure to lab to courtroom are broken, even if a hearsay exception would otherwise apply to a lab report.
- Business-records shortcuts do not replace authentication. A custodian can explain record-keeping practices and still fail if nobody can say the particular PDF or printout is the record of this patient, this account, or this machine.
- Self-authentication is narrow. Counsel who wave a notarization or a letterhead and skip the rest of Rule 901-style analysis often lose when the document's contents are disputed.
Practical authentication checklist for Michigan trials: identify the exhibit; choose a 901 method or a 902 category; line up the sponsoring witness or certificate; preserve chain-of-custody testimony for physical and digital items; and separate the authenticity objection from any hearsay objection so the court rules on each.
Michigan authenticity opinions
People v. Dixon — Schuette, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part
People v. Dixon — Schuette, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, 263 Mich. App. 393 (2004)
…an extremely calm voice. Here, defense counsel attempted to authenticate the 911 tape by using the victim to identify her own voice. The trial court ruled that this was not a proper mode of authentication. However, the trial court should have admitted the 911 tape because the victim was able to vouch for its authenticity and state what it was purported to be, a recording of her…
Practitioners open People v. Dixon — Schuette, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part when Michigan authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Here, defense counsel attempted to authenticate the 911 tape by using the victim to identify her own voice. The trial court ruled that this was not a proper mode of authentication." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Apsey v. Memorial Hospital
Apsey v. Memorial Hospital, 477 Mich. 120 (2007)
KELLY, J. This case presents the question of what authentication is necessary for out-of-state affidavits in Michigan. The parties ask us to determine whether MCL 600.2102(4) of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA) *124conflicts with the Uniform Recognition of Acknowl-edgements Act (URAA), MCL 565.261 et seq., and to discern the meaning of MCL 565.268 and its relation to…
Apsey v. Memorial Hospital is worth reading on Michigan authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "KELLY, J. This case presents the question of what authentication is necessary for out-of-state affidavits in Michigan. The parties ask us to determine whether MCL 600." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
People v. Berkey
People v. Berkey, 437 Mich. 40 (1991)
…t the prosecutor had failed to offer sufficient evidence to authenticate the tapes. However, the Court of Appeals employed the incorrect standard for determining the authenticity of the tapes. Under Rule 901 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, we are satisfied that the tapes were authenticated properly. Therefore, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this c…
Practitioners open People v. Berkey when Michigan authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "However, the Court of Appeals employed the incorrect standard for determining the authenticity of the tapes. Under Rule 901 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, we are satisfied that the tapes were authenticated properly." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Rolla MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KALAMAZOO ANESTHESIOLOGY, PC and Bernard Mason Smith III, M.D
…the jury, the trial judge held that defendants had properly authenticated the image and, as a result, plaintiff's counsel was precluded from presenting evidence or argument to the jury that the proffered image was not, in fact, an accurate image of plaintiff's shoulder. As explained below, we conclude that the trial court properly served its gatekeeping *322 role by admitting t…
Michigan opinions such as Rolla MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KALAMAZOO ANESTHESIOLOGY, PC and Bernard Mason Smith III, M.D are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "the jury, the trial judge held that defendants had properly authenticated the image and, as a result, plaintiff's counsel was precluded from presenting evidence or argument to the jury that the proffered image was not, in fact, an accurate image of plaintiff's shoulder. As explai" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Slocum v. Ford Motor Company
Slocum v. Ford Motor Company, 111 Mich. App. 127 (1981)
…n Journal. Plaintiffs objected on the basis that it was not authenticated *138 and constituted improper impeachment. The trial court admitted the exhibit for the limited purpose of showing that what Mr. Kurt reported the article to say, in fact, was not said. On appeal, plaintiffs renew their argument that the exhibit was not properly authenticated and constituted improper impe…
On authentication, Slocum v. Ford Motor Company speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "Journal. Plaintiffs objected on the basis that it was not authenticated *138 and constituted improper impeachment. The trial court admitted the exhibit for the limited purpose of showing that what Mr. Kurt reported the article to say, in fact, was not said." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Werthman v. General Motors Corporation
Werthman v. General Motors Corporation, 187 Mich. App. 238 (1991)
…is of skid marks, the exhibits relied upon must be properly authenticated. See Dudek v Popp, 373 Mich 300, 307; 129 NW2d 393 (1964). MRE 901 provides in pertinent part: (a) General Provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what i…
Werthman v. General Motors Corporation is worth reading on Michigan authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "See Dudek v Popp, 373 Mich 300, 307; 129 NW2d 393 (1964). MRE 901 provides in pertinent part: (a) General Provision." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Cornelius Cronin v. Board of Supervisors of Kalkaska County
Cornelius Cronin v. Board of Supervisors of Kalkaska County, 58 Mich. 448 (1885)
…the Court as exhibits in the shape of certified copies, or authenticated in some way, rather than in bare recitals of its existence, with a mere reference thereto. The bearing and effect of records or other written instruments upon the point or points in issue is generally to be determined by the court instead of a jury. If the documentary evidence disclosed by the pleadings i…
Cornelius Cronin v. Board of Supervisors of Kalkaska County is worth reading on Michigan authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "Court as exhibits in the shape of certified copies, or authenticated in some way, rather than in bare recitals of its existence, with a mere reference thereto." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Practice checklist
- State the relevance theory in one sentence before naming an exception.
- Run the 403 / unfair-prejudice balance explicitly for other-acts and graphic exhibits.
- For character or other-acts evidence, identify the non-propensity purpose and request a limiting instruction on the record.
- Decide whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay for the purpose offered before hunting exceptions.
- Lay business-records foundations with time, knowledge, regular practice, and custodial qualifications — or a qualifying certification.
- Prove unavailability with specific facts before offering former testimony or dying declarations.
- Treat deposition use as procedure-plus-hearsay; designate and counter-designate early.
- Authenticate every exhibit under Mich. R. Evid. 901, 902 (or the self-authentication path) before arguing hearsay.
- Preserve chain of custody for physical and digital evidence with named custodians.
- Search LawDiver for recent Michigan appellate evidence opinions before mediation or motions in limine.
Contents
- General standards of admissibility
- Character evidence
- Hearsay: start with the definition
- Party admissions
- Business records
- Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
- Declarant unavailable
- Dying declarations
- Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
- Use of depositions at trial
- Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
- Practice checklist
- Frequently asked questions
General standards of admissibility
Michigan starts every evidence dispute with relevance and unfair prejudice. Under Mich. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and relevant evidence is still excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Preliminary questions of admissibility are for the court; conditional relevance and limited-purpose instructions keep otherwise-usable proof from becoming a Trojan horse for propensity or truth-of-the-matter use.
Michigan Court Rules integrate procedural and evidentiary provisions. Check Mich. R. Evid. 411 and MCL supplements for insurance and medical-expense nuances.
Practice tip: articulate the theory of relevance in one sentence before citing the exception. Lawyers who lead with "it's a business record" without explaining what fact the record proves often lose the 403 balance even when the hearsay foundation is clean.
Frequently asked questions
What is the primary evidence source in Michigan?
Michigan applies the Michigan Rules of Evidence. Michigan's rules closely follow the FRE; Mich. R. Evid. 401–902 govern evidentiary issues in circuit and district courts statewide.
How do Michigan courts decide relevance and unfair prejudice?
Under Mich. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and the court may exclude relevant evidence when unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time substantially outweighs its probative value.
Are party admissions hearsay in Michigan?
Party-opponent statements under Mich. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) are generally excluded from the hearsay ban (or treated as an exception, depending on local drafting). They may be offered against the party who made or adopted them without showing unavailability.
What foundation is required for business records?
Under Mich. R. Evid. 803(6), show a record made at or near the time from someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as a regular practice, through a custodian, qualified witness, or allowed certification — subject to trustworthiness attack.
When can I use a deposition at trial in Michigan?
Mich. Ct. R. 2.310 and 2.311 govern civil depositions and trial use. Mich. Ct. R. 6.201 addresses criminal discovery; deposition testimony at trial requires Mich. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) when the witness is unavailable.
Why is authenticity separate from hearsay?
Authenticity asks whether the item is what you claim it is; hearsay asks whether out-of-court assertions inside it may be used for their truth. You can lose on either ground independently. Michigan authenticity practice starts with Mich. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Where do dying declarations and medical statements fit?
Dying declarations under Mich. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) require belief in impending death and concern the cause or circumstances of that believed death. Medical statements under Mich. R. Evid. 803(4) require a genuine diagnostic or treatment purpose and reasonable pertinence to care.