6.3Plea Bargain with Ambiguous Terms
General contract principles should be applied when construing plea bargains with ambiguous terms. See People v Rydzewski, 331 Mich App 126, 138 (2020). “When interpreting contractual terms, a court’s primary purpose is to determine the parties’ intent from the language of the contract. In general, contract language is interpreted according to its plain meaning. An unambiguous contract must be enforced according to its terms.” Id. at 138 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “When the contract’s terms are ambiguous, a court may look to extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent.” Id. “A contractual term can be ambiguous either when it is equally susceptible to more than a single meaning or if two provisions of the same contract irreconcilably conflict with each other.” Id. at 138-139 (quotation marks and citation omitted). A contractual ambiguity can be patent or latent in nature. Id. at 139. “A patent ambiguity arises from the face of the document,” while “a latent ambiguity does not readily appear in the language of a document, but instead arises from a collateral matter when the document’s terms are applied or executed.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Although “finding . . . ambiguity is a last resort in contract interpretation,” it may be appropriate where “the language and context of [a] provision of the plea agreement [does] not provide [a court] with enough guidance to construe and give effect to the parties’ intention from the plain language alone.” Id. at 139 (quotation marks and citation omitted) (finding a latent ambiguity in a plea provision that indicated “no mental health court” because it was subject to multiple meanings).
See the Michigan Judicial Institute’s Civil Proceedings Benchbook, Chapter 9, for more information on contract principles.