People v. Jones, Docket No. 69718
Decision Date | 03 December 1984 |
Docket Number | D,No. 6,Docket No. 69718,6 |
Citation | 358 N.W.2d 837,419 Mich. 577 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arthur Woodie JONES, Defendant-Appellee. ec. Term 1983. Calendar |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Chief Appellate Asst. Pros. Atty., Janice M. Joyce Bartee, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.
State Appellate Defender Office by Chari K. Grove, Asst. Appellate Defender, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Defendant was charged with first-degree murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.316; M.S.A. Sec. 28.548, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, M.C.L. Sec. 750.227b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.424(2), in the fatal shooting of William Stanford. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.317; M.S.A. Sec. 28.549, and of felony-firearm.
The Court of Appeals reversed, People v. Jones, 115 Mich.App. 543, 321 N.W.2d 723 (1982), holding that the trial judge had erred in failing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter and that reversal was required.
We affirm.
In this case, as in People v. Ora Jones, 395 Mich. 379, 236 N.W.2d 461 (1975), we are satisfied that the instructions did not fully and fairly present the case to the jury in an understandable manner.
The prosecutor would distinguish this case from Ora Jones on the basis that the theory of the defense in that case was accident whereas here the defendant did not claim accident.
It is true that in Ora Jones the defendant testified that the gun accidentally discharged when his arm was jostled, whereas the defendant in this case produced no witnesses. We do not think such fact or a fair reading of the testimony which was adduced establishes the prosecutor's assertion that the defendant did not claim accident.
Perhaps the most persuasive evidence that defendant did this shooting at all was the testimony of his girlfriend that in telling her about the shooting, " .
This evidence was offered and admitted as a party admission and is accordingly some evidence that the shooting was unintentional.
In his closing argument the prosecutor observed: "In raising the whole spectrum of accident, brother counsel wants to give the police so much credit on the one hand".
Although defense counsel argued for an all-or-nothing verdict on the first-degree murder charge instead of arguing for accidental discharge of the weapon, the question of accident was properly within the jury's contemplation.
The record in this case does not contain any written requests for instructions, and the transcript does not show that any oral requests were made. The judge's instruction sua sponte on manslaughter is inexplicable. We found no evidence in the record which would support a conclusion that the killing was done in such circumstances of passion or provocation as would support a verdict of voluntary manslaughter.
We are satisfied that the Court of Appeals was correct in ordering a new trial for the reason we stated in Ora Jones, p. 393, 236 N.W.2d 461:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Heflin
...have supported a conviction of involuntary manslaughter." Id. 409 Mich. at 137-138, 293 N.W.2d 332. 15 See also People v. Arthur Jones, 419 Mich. 577, 358 N.W.2d 837 (1984); People v. West, 408 Mich. 332, 343, 291 N.W.2d 48 (1980); People v. Paul, 395 Mich. 444, 236 N.W.2d 486 (1975); Marti......
-
Duvall v. Bell
...Berry v. Mintzes, 529 F. Supp. 1067, 1075 (E.D. Mich. 1981); People v. Jones, 115 Mich.App. 543, 548, 321 N.W.2d 723 (1982), aff'd 419 Mich. 577 (1984). While the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has indicated that the use of a witness's coerced testimony may violate a d......
-
People v. Williams
...373 (1983). Recently, the Supreme Court affirmed this Court without finding that the error therein was harmless. See People v. Jones, 419 Mich. 577, 358 N.W.2d 837 (1984). Until the Supreme Court issues a majority opinion on the standard of review for cases involving the harmless-error rule......
-
Currie v. Rapelje
...v. Mintzes, 529 F. Supp. 1067, 1075 (E.D. Mich. 1981); People v. Jones, 115 Mich. App. 543, 548, 321 N.W.2d 723 (1982), aff'd 419 Mich. 577, 358 N.W.2d 837 (1984). While the Sixth Circuit once indicated that the use of a witness's coerced testimony may violate a defendant's due process righ......