Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
September 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
133360 & (55) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Robert P. Young, Jr.
Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
v SC: 133360
COA: 263300
Berrien CC: 2004-404393-FC
RODNEY ALLAN HUBBARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 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. The motion to
remand is DENIED.
MARKMAN, J., concurs and states as follows:
Because defendant has failed to make any showing that voiceprint evidence would
demonstrate that the voice on the recording was not his own, I concur in the order
denying leave to appeal. I write separately to observe that this Court, in an appropriate
case, should revisit its conclusion in People v Tobey, 401 Mich 141, 148 (1977), that
voiceprint evidence is inadmissible because it has not “achieved general scientific
acceptance as a reliable identification device . . . .” Since Tobey was decided, 11 other
states have addressed the admissibility of voiceprint evidence: five states have admitted
such evidence, see, e.g., People v Coon, 974 P2d 386 (Alas, 1999), and six states have
rejected such evidence, see, e.g., State v Gortarez,141 Ariz 254 (1984). Coon is the only
decision of a state supreme court that has addressed voiceprint evidence under the test of
Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 (1993), which is now the
relevant standard in Michigan under MRE 702. In light of these legal developments, as
well as potential technological improvements in voiceprint technology over the past three
decades, this Court should revisit the admissibility of voiceprint evidence on an
appropriate occasion.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
September 28, 2007 _________________________________________
s0925 Clerk