People v. Berryhill
Decision Date | 30 November 1967 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 2333,No. 2,2 |
Citation | 8 Mich.App. 497,154 N.W.2d 593 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Allen BERRYHILL, Defendant-Appellant |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
John H. Cresswell, Utica, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, George N. Parris, Pros. Atty., Macomb County, Mt. Clemens, for appellee.
Before GILLIS, P.J., T. G. KAVANAGH and WEIPERT, * JJ.
This is an appeal from a denial of a motion for a new trial following a conviction on February 24, 1966 of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. 1
The facts are relatively simple and not in great dispute. The defendant, after an altercation with one William Sheets, was ejected from a tavern known as the Starlight Inn. He returned to the tavern, attempted to hit Sheets with a beer bottle and struck one Leo McMillan. He defended the charge on the theory that he was too intoxicated to form the specific intent required for conviction under the statute.
The appeal makes three assertions of error:
'1. Did the court err when it allowed the jury the liberty to convict on the testimony of only one witness who has been conclusively shown by impeachment to be unworthy of belief?
'2. Does failure to file a bill of particulars, when a timely request therefor has been made, cause the defendant's rights to be irreparably damaged; when the crime charged is a statutory crime of specific intent and not a common law crime: and the defendant, as a result of said failure, is first apprised of the prosecution's actual charge against the defendant in the opening statement at the trial of said cause?
The first question should be more accurately stated to raise the question of whether there was evidence sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See People v. Schram (1965), 1 Mich.App. 279, 136 N.W.2d 44. Since this question was properly preserved for appellate review by the defendant's motion for new trial, we have considered the evidence carefully and conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The only real issue raised by the defense was the degree of defendant's intoxication. All of the witnesses on the subject told of his drinking and only one said he was 'sober,' and this witness, claims the defendant, was impeached. Thus the defendant claims the 'overwhelming weight of the evidence' was that the defendant was intoxicated. But even if granted, this only gets him halfway home.
To be a defense to a specific intent crime, intoxication must be so complete that the defendant didn't know what he was doing or if he knew what he was doing he didn't know why, or didn't know that what he was doing was naturally capable of causing the harm alleged to be intended. See Roberts v. People (1870), 19...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Kelley
...v. Jones (1924), 228 Mich. 426, 200 N.W. 158.9 See People v. Guillett (1955), 342 Mich. 1, 69 N.W.2d 140.10 See People v. Berryhill (1967), 8 Mich.App. 497, 154 N.W.2d 593.11 See People v. Walker (1878), 38 Mich. 156. Cf. People v. Cummins (1882), 47 Mich. 334, 11 N.W. 184, 186.12 See Peopl......
-
People v. King
...doing was naturally culpable or-ah-causing harm alleged to the intended. That's a-ah-Court of Appeals case cited (People v. Berryhill, 8 Mich.App. 497, 154 N.W.2d 593 (1967)). Evidence of intoxication can-ah-negate requisite specific intent necessary to sustain defendant's conviction for a ......
-
People v. Culp
...228 Mich. 426, 200 N.W. 158 (1924), assault with intent to murder was observed to be a specific intent crime; in People v. Berryhill, 8 Mich.App. 497, 154 N.W.2d 593 (1967), specific intent was found to be an element of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder; and in Pe......
-
People v. Rich
...standard was said to have 'completely and properly' instructed the jury and 'fully protected' the defendant. In People v. Berryhill, 8 Mich.App. 497, 154 N.W.2d 593 (1967), then-Judge T. G. Kavanagh cited the rule of Roberts as controlling. In People v. Kelley, 21 Mich.App. 612, 622--623, 1......