People v. Handley
Decision Date | 22 December 1982 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 66463 |
Citation | 415 Mich. 356,329 N.W.2d 710 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph HANDLEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellee. 415 Mich. 356, 329 N.W.2d 710 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Chief Appellate, Asst. Pros. Atty. and Anne B. Wetherholt, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for the People.
Robert E. Slameka, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
We again address the issue examined in People v. Hurst, 396 Mich. 1, 238 N.W.2d 6 (1976); People v. Mays, 407 Mich. 619, 288 N.W.2d 207 (1980); and People v. West, 408 Mich. 332, 291 N.W.2d 48 (1980): what may the trial judge properly say to the jury with regard to the order of its deliberations on the main charge and a lesser included offense?
The defendant was tried on charges of first-degree murder 1 and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. 2 The trial judge instructed the jury on possible verdicts of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter. As to how the jury should proceed to consider these offenses, he said:
The jury convicted the defendant of the main charge. On appeal, the defendant claimed that this instruction had the improper effect of requiring the jury to unanimously find him not guilty of first-degree murder before it could proceed to the lesser charges. The Court of Appeals agreed, and it reversed his conviction. 101 Mich.App. 130, 300 N.W.2d 502 (1980).
We first addressed this issue in Hurst in which the instruction was:
" 'If you find either of the defendants not guilty of the charge of manslaughter then you should proceed to determine whether that defendant not guilty of the crime of manslaughter is guilty of the crime of assault and battery.' "
Although we reversed Hurst's conviction on another ground, we said as to this instruction:
In Mays, we found the following instruction coercive:
We also said:
Finally, in West, we reviewed the following instruction:
" "
We said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Tate
...407, cert. denied, 71 Haw. 668, 833 P.2d 901 (1990); State v. Korbel, 231 Kan. 657, 661, 647 P.2d 1301 (1982); People v. Handley, 415 Mich. 356, 358-60, 329 N.W.2d 710 (1982); State v. Thomas, 401 Ohio St. 3d 213, 218-20, 533 N.E.2d 286 (1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 826, 110 S. Ct. 89, 107......
-
People v. Kelly
...considered on appeal unless the issue has been preserved by an objection to the instruction in the trial court." People v. Handley, 415 Mich. 356, 360, 329 N.W.2d 710 (1982). Relief will be granted absent an objection only in cases of manifest injustice. See, e.g., People v. Woods, 416 Mich......
-
People v. Woods
...the functional equivalent of "acquit". While such an instruction might be error under our later decisions, see People v. Handley, 415 Mich. 356, 329 N.W.2d 710 (1982), it was not clearly erroneous at the time it was given. Finding no evidence of actual prejudice on the record, we cannot agr......
-
State v. LeBlanc
...of law). Moreover, the giving of a Wussler-type instruction does not rise to the level of fundamental error. See People v. Handley, 415 Mich. 356, 329 N.W.2d 710, 712 (1982). Finally, because the change we make today is procedural in nature, adopted for purposes of judicial administration, ......