Justice Elizabeth T. Clement disagreed in a dissent joined by Justices Richard H. Bernstein and Kyra H. Bolden, writing that the majority was drawing “distinctions without meaningful differences” between interlocutory and final appeals in its ruling on subject-matter jurisdiction.
Scott had argued the trial court lacked authority to hold the trial because of his pending appeal of a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling that prosecutors could call two witnesses to testify Scott had raped them in a similar manner to the alleged victim, citing the case People v. Washington, in which the high court found a man’s sentence void because the judge had no subject-matter jurisdiction to impose the sentence while an appeal of the final judgment remained unresolved at the state supreme court.
Scott filed his Michigan Supreme Court appeal of the witness-testimony ruling the day before his November 2016 trial was set to begin, but the judge proceeded with the trial, which resulted in Scott’s conviction and sentencing, before the state high court decided whether to hear his appeal. The state justices eventually denied his petition.
