People v. Hardin
Decision Date | 01 June 1984 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 70736 |
Citation | 421 Mich. 296,365 N.W.2d 101 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tyrone Victor HARDIN, Defendant-Appellee. , |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
David H. Sawyer, Kent County Pros. Atty., Timothy K. McMorrow, Chief Appellate Atty., Grand Rapids, for plaintiff-appellant.
George S. Buth, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellee.
RYAN, Justice (for reversal).
We are asked to refine further our decision in People v. Sullivan, 392 Mich. 324, 220 N.W.2d 441 (1974), in which we adopted, prospectively, ABA standard jury instruction 5.4 for use as supplemental instructions to deadlocked juries. In Sullivan, we renounced future use of the "Allen" charge, Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896); we adopted ABA standard jury instruction 5.4; and we asserted that "[a]ny substantial departure [from ABA standard jury instruction 5.4] shall be grounds for reversible error." 392 Mich. at 341-342, 220 N.W.2d 441.
The opinion for affirmance holds that the deviation from ABA standard jury instruction 5.4 in this case constitutes a "substantial departure," and it would affirm the Court of Appeals reversal of the defendant's conviction. We disagree, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the defendant's conviction.
Defendant was charged with assault with intent to murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.83; M.S.A. Sec. 28.278, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, M.C.L. Sec. 750.227b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.424(2), and carrying a concealed weapon, M.C.L. Sec. 750.227; M.S.A. Sec. 28.424.
In the early afternoon hours of October 30, 1979, Grand Rapids Police Officer John Kuipers, after hearing a dispatch report concerning an armed robbery, began to follow a Buick with three people inside, one of whom wore clothing similar to that described in the dispatch. Although Officer Kuipers activated the overhead lights on the police cruiser and sounded the horn, the Buick sped up. Kuipers chased the Buick for several minutes, and he eventually rammed it with the police cruiser. After Kuipers got out of the car, all three occupants of the Buick began firing guns at Kuipers.
Two of the occupants, later identified as Henry Thomas and Michael Long, ran from the car. The remaining occupant, later identified as defendant Tyrone Victor Hardin, was apprehended. At trial, defendant Hardin did not testify, although he did present a defense essentially to the effect that, although he was in the car, he did not do any shooting, and, in fact, had attempted to get the driver of the car to stop during the chase.
The jury began deliberation at 2:26 p.m. on August 27, 1980, and rendered its verdict on August 29, 1980, at 11:50 a.m. Between the time the jurors began deliberating and the time they rendered their verdict, the jury was returned to the courtroom on five occasions and given additional or supplemental instructions. The jury found the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.84; M.S.A. Sec. 28.279, carrying a concealed weapon, and felony-firearm. He was sentenced to the mandatory two-year term for felony-firearm, two and one-half to five years for carrying a concealed weapon, and six and one-half to ten years for the assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder.
Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals. A divided Court of Appeals panel reversed the convictions. 121 Mich.App. 355, 328 N.W.2d 416 (1982). This Court granted leave, 417 Mich. 1040, 335 N.W.2d 467 (1983),
The sole issue, which concerns the supplemental jury instructions given after the jury initially retired for deliberation, is better understood if we set forth, in some detail, the events that transpired.
The closing statements by counsel were completed during the morning of August 27, 1980. The trial judge began giving jury instructions at 1:36 p.m., and he concluded at 2:20 p.m., at which time the jury retired. At 2:23 p.m., the jury was returned to the courtroom in order to give the jury additional instructions relative to codefendant Thomas. The jury then retired at 2:25 p.m., and commenced deliberations at 2:26 p.m. The jury again returned to the courtroom at 5:39 p.m. without having rendered a verdict, and they recessed for the day. The jurors agreed to meet at 9:30 a.m. the next morning.
Although it is unclear exactly when the jury began deliberations the next day, August 28, 1980, they were returned to the courtroom at 10:25 a.m. The trial judge read aloud a statement the jurors had submitted to him--"We are confused on the judge's instructions regarding intent." The judge reread instructions regarding intent. The jury commenced deliberations at 10:30 a.m., but they were returned to the courtroom at 2:19 p.m. At that time, the following occurred:
This will be referred to as the "first instruction."
The jury then retired at approximately 2:22 p.m. The trial judge inquired of counsel whether there were any objections, and was told there were none. The jury again was returned to the courtroom at 3:48 p.m. Although the record does not indicate that the jury had posed any question, the trial judge gave the following instruction ("second instruction"):
The jury then retired at 3:50 p.m.
However, at 5:16, the jury was again returned to the courtroom, where the following ("third instruction") occurred:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Caddell
...441 (1974). The goal of such an instruction is to encourage further deliberation without coercing a verdict. People v. Hardin , 421 Mich. 296, 314, 365 N.W.2d 101 (1984). See Allen v. United States , 164 U.S. 492, 501, 17 S. Ct. 154, 41 L. Ed. 528 (1896) ("While undoubtedly, the verdict of ......
-
People v. Walker
...441 (1974). The goal of such an instruction is to encourage further deliberation without coercing a verdict. People v. Hardin , 421 Mich. 296, 314, 365 N.W.2d 101 (1984). See Allen v. United States , 164 U.S. 492, 501, 17 S. Ct. 154, 41 L. Ed. 528 (1896) ("While undoubtedly, the verdict of ......
-
People v. Lett
...jury be forced to engage in protracted deliberations. See Washington, supra, 434 U.S. at 509-510, 98 S.Ct. 824; People v. Hardin, 421 Mich. 296, 365 N.W.2d 101 (1984).16 We conclude that the judge did not abuse her discretion in declaring a mistrial under the circumstances of this case. The......
-
French v. Jones
...ABA standard instruction 5.4 would be grounds for reversible error. Sullivan, 392 Mich. at 342, 220 N.W.2d at 450. In People v. Hardin, 421 Mich. 296, 365 N.W.2d 101 (1984), the Michigan Supreme Court held that substantial deviation from ABA standard jury instruction 5.4 only warranted reve......