People v. Edwards
Decision Date | 07 September 1994 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 150752 |
Citation | 522 N.W.2d 727,206 Mich.App. 694 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharon EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., Arthur A. Busch, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Kuebler, Chief, Research, Training, and Appeals, and Morris R. Kent, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Roger A. Lange, Flint, for defendant.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and BRENNAN and BATZER, * JJ.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree child abuse, M.C.L. § 750.136b(3); M.S.A. § 28.331(2)(3), and was sentenced to a prison term of two to four years. Defendant appeals as of right. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Defendant was charged with first-degree child abuse after her daughter received second-degree burns over thirty-three percent of her body as a result of contact with boiling hot water. Although there is a dispute over the manner in which the child came into contact with the water, there is no dispute that defendant left a bucket of boiling hot water on a floor in a location easily accessible to her children. 1 The prosecution's theory was that defendant threw the water at the child. The defense theory was that defendant, who is deaf, was drawing a bath for the children and did not see how the child came into contact with the water.
In instructing the jury on the elements of second-degree child abuse, the trial court stated:
Second, that the defendant did some reckless act. In this act, for example, leaving a large pail of scalding hot water in a bucket on the floor of a room easily accessible to small children.
Although the defendant did not object to this instruction, the instruction regarding recklessness was error that requires reversal. Defendant admitted leaving the bucket of water on the floor. The trial court told the jury in this instruction that it was reckless to leave a bucket of hot water on the floor in the presence of children. The instruction removed the element of recklessness from the jury's consideration. The failure to permit the jury to make the critical determination regarding whether defendant's conduct constituted a reckless act requires reversal and a new trial. See, e.g., People v. Allensworth, 401 Mich. 67, 71, 257 N.W.2d 81 (1977).
The prosecution argues that the trial court merely gave an example of a reckless act in an effort to "clarify the meaning of a complex legal term." People v. Shepherd, 63 Mich.App. 316, 234 N.W.2d 502 (1975). While acknowledging that examples may be useful for this purpose, however, the Shepherd Court cautioned:
[T]he jury is likely to give undue weight to examples, since they are easier to comprehend, and it may simply compare the defendant's conduct with the example. To prevent these adverse effects, the trial judge must clearly indicate that the examples are only examples, and that the jury must determine guilt or innocence by following the jury instructions as a whole. [Id. at 322, 234 N.W.2d 502.]
In this case, the trial court used defendant's conduct itself as an example of a reckless act. The court exceeded the danger contemplated in Shepherd that the jury might simply compare the defendant's conduct with the example. Rather, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Bartlett
...invaded the province of the jury or left the jury with no other alternative but to convict defendant. Cf. People v. Edwards, 206 Mich.App. 694, 696-697, 522 N.W.2d 727 (1994). 11 Thus, even though the trial court might better have refrained from making its final comment to the jury, we beli......
-
People v. Murphy
...at the time. See M. Crim. J.I. 17.20. Generally, determining whether an act was reckless is a jury question. See People v. Edwards , 206 Mich.App. 694, 696–697, 522 N.W.2d 727 (1994). The question in this case, however, is not whether Murphy was "reckless."5 Instead, it is whether she commi......
-
People v. Cooper, Docket No. 206970.
...would constitute error requiring reversal if the jury convicted the defendant of the pertinent crime. See People v. Edwards, 206 Mich.App. 694, 696-697, 522 N.W.2d 727 (1994) (reversing a conviction of second-degree child abuse based on an injury suffered by a child from leaving a bucket of......
-
People v. Bowman, Docket No. 230381.
...a court must also consider whether the declarant's emotional state would have permitted such fabrication. People v. Edwards, 206 Mich.App. 694, 697, 522 N.W.2d 727 (1994). Under none of these standards does the statement in question qualify as an excited utterance. Although defendant offere......