People v. Cassiday, 644
| Decision Date | 13 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 644,No. 3,644,3 |
| Citation | 4 Mich.App. 215,144 N.W.2d 676 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles CASSIDAY, Defendant-Appellant. Cal |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James E. Wilson, Wilson & Stone, Midland, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Edward G. Durance, Pros. Atty., Midland County, Midland, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and T. G. KAVANAGH and RASHID, * JJ.,
Defendant was charged with committing the crime of negligent homicide in violation of C.L.1948, § 750.324 1 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.556). Defendant was tried by jury and on January 20, 1965 he was convicted as charged.
The charge arose out of an automobile accident in which Marilyn J. Blanck lost her life while a passenger in a 1960 Volkswagen which was struck from the rear by a 1964 Chevrolet pickup truck drive by the defendant.
At trial prior to submitting the case to the jury for deliberation, the court gave the jury, among others, the following instruction:
'It is the duty of the jury to accept as correct the statement of law that it receives from the Court. In the field of facts, these facts are to be determined by you.
'The charge that we have here is one commonly known as 'negligent homicide.' Insofar as material, the statute provides:
'Any person who by the operation of any vehicle at an immoderate rate of speed or in a careless, reckless or negligent manner, but not wilfully or wantonly shall cause the death of another shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
Defendant contends it was reversible error for the court to have read to the jury that portion of the statute which designated the class of the offense, to wit: a misdemeanor.
The Supreme Court in People v. Noyes (1950), 328 Mich. 207, 43 N.W.2d 331, although not deciding the question raised herein, found no reversible error in instructions that were quoted from a criminal statute, including that portion of the statute which classified the offense as a felony.
To consider this question of the propriety of an instruction given to a jury, the party raising such question must have preserved that right by timely objection at the trial level. As stated in GCR 1963, 516.2:
(Emphasis supplied.)
See also, Nuccio v. Severini (1965)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kelley
...v. Keiswetter (1967), 7 Mich.App. 334, 151 N.W.2d 829; People v. Dexter (1967), 6 Mich.App. 247, 148 N.W.2d 915; People v. Cassiday (1966), 4 Mich.App. 215, 144 N.W.2d 676; People v. Mallory (1966), 2 Mich.App. 359, 139 N.W.2d 904. The Michigan Supreme Court has adopted the same view. Nucci......
-
People v. Tubbs
...instructions to the jury must be raised at the time the instructions are given or the objections are waived. People v. Cassiday (1966), 4 Mich.App. 215, 144 N.W.2d 676; People v. Dexter (1967), 6 Mich.App. 247, 148 N.W.2d 915; People v. Keys (1968), 9 Mich.App. 482, 157 N.W.2d 419; People v......
-
People v. Nichols
...of the charges as the 'major offense' and the 'minor offense' as reversibly erroneous. 1 See also People v. Cassiday, 4 Mich.App. 215, 216, 144 N.W.2d 676--677 (1966); People v. Kennedy, 22 Mich.App. 524, 526--527, 177 N.W.2d 669, 670 (1970); People v. Noyes, 328 Mich. 207, 210--211, 43 N.W......
-
People v. Daleo
...People v. Spaulding, 42 Mich.App. 492, 202 N.W.2d 450; People v. Tubbs, 22 Mich.App. 549, 177 N.W.2d 622 (1970); People v. Cassiday, 4 Mich.App. 215, 144 N.W.2d 676 (1966). Therefore, inasmuch as defendant's counsel failed to raise an objection, we turn to the question of whether the defend......