Donkers v. Kovach

749 N.W.2d 744 (Mich. 2008) · Supreme Court of Michigan · June 13, 2008 · No. 135712

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal from the Michigan Court of Appeals judgment in Donkers v. Kovach. Justice Markman, joined by Chief Justice Taylor and Justice Corrigan, dissented, arguing that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff's case after she refused to affirm truthfully with her right hand raised. The dissent discussed oath and affirmation procedures, religious objections, and the applicable federal and Michigan free-exercise standards.

Court
Supreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the Court
Markman, J.; Taylor, C.J.; Corrigan, J.
Jurisdiction
Michigan
Decision date
June 13, 2008
Docket number
135712
Procedural posture
The Michigan Supreme Court considered an application for leave to appeal from the Michigan Court of Appeals' December 18, 2007 judgment and denied the application. Justice Markman dissented from the denial and would have affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's case.
Standard of review
The majority did not reach the merits. In dissent, Justice Markman stated that the trial court's dismissal should be reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published order denying leave to appeal; the substantive constitutional analysis is contained in a dissent and is not a majority holding.
Parties
Timothy Kovach v. Catherine Nicole Donkers, Brad Lee Barnhill
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate procedurefree exercise clausefirst amendmentevidencecivil procedure

Practice areas

Civil procedureConstitutional lawEvidenceAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Michigan Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal concerning the dismissal of a plaintiff's case after she refused to affirm with her right hand raised before testifying.
  2. Whether requiring a witness to raise the right hand while affirming or swearing to tell the truth implicates the federal or Michigan constitutional protections for the free exercise of religion.
  3. Whether Michigan's Free Exercise Clause requires strict scrutiny of neutral laws of general applicability.

Holdings

  1. The Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal because it was not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by the Court.

Key quotations

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. (744)
Although "religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection," a person making a free exercise claim must provide some showing of the "sincerity" of the professed belief. (745)
Under the federal constitutional standard, the right of free exercise does not generally relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes). (745)

Factual background

A plaintiff was required to provide truthful testimony in court. She refused to affirm with her right hand raised, citing vague religious beliefs but providing no explanation of the nature or source of those beliefs. The trial court dismissed her case after she refused to comply with the prescribed procedure for administering testimony.

Procedural history

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's case after she refused to affirm with her right hand raised before giving testimony. The Michigan Court of Appeals issued a judgment on December 18, 2007, and the defendant sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied leave because it was not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed; Justice Markman, joined by Chief Justice Taylor and Justice Corrigan, disagreed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…