People v. Lester
| Decision Date | 01 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 1,Docket Nos. 60342,61268,2,s. 1 |
| Citation | 406 Mich. 252,277 N.W.2d 633 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick Alfonso LESTER and Joe W. Lester, Defendants-Appellants. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James M. LESTER, Defendant-Appellant. Calendar406 Mich. 252, 277 N.W.2d 633 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Andrea L. Solak, Asst. Pros. Attys., Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Carl Ziemba, Detroit, Rolf E. Berg, Deputy State Appellate Defender, for defendants-appellants.
These defendants were jointly tried for the murder of Shane Davis. The jury found them guilty of murder in the first degree. The theory of the prosecution was that defendant James Lester shot and killed Shane Davis while James' brothers Frederick and Joe Lester aided and abetted James in that effort. The theory of the defense was that the gun which was being carried by James Lester accidentally discharged during the course of a struggle between James Lester and Shane Davis.
The single issue before this Court is the propriety of the trial court's refusal to give a requested instruction to the jury on the defense theory that the homicide was accidental. The Court of Appeals, in finding no error on this point, concluded that the instructions which the trial court did give to the jury clearly informed them that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution to show that the killing was intentional or that it was due to reckless disregard for the safety of others and that such an instruction "in essence" embodied the requested instruction on accident. 78 Mich.App. 21, 259 N.W.2d 370 (1977).
While the trial court's instruction with regard to the burden of proof and the requisite intent were correct, we hold that a proper instruction on the defense theory of accidental homicide should also have been given.
In his opening statement to the jury, defendant James Lester's attorney indicated that it was the position of the defense that the gun discharged accidentally when Shane Davis threw his arms up. Evidence was adduced at trial to support this theory. This position was repeated in defense counsel's closing argument. Defense counsel for Joe and Frederick Lester requested the trial court to give the jury the following instruction:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mills
...June 9, 1994 (Docket Nos. 130332, 130333, slip op at 1).] I would adopt this analysis. As this Court held in People v. Lester, 406 Mich. 252, 254-255, 277 N.W.2d 633 (1979): [W]hen ... the defense theory is accidental homicide, the defense requests an instruction on the theory, and there is......
-
State v. Iromuanya
...adequately covered all pertinent matters included in Iromuanya's proposed "theory of defense" instruction. Based on People v. Lester, 406 Mich. 252, 277 N.W.2d 633 (1979), Iromuanya argues that he was nevertheless entitled to a separate instruction on his theory of defense. In Lester, the M......
-
Rowland v. Washtenaw County Road Com'n
... ... judicial usurpation that runs counter to the bedrock principle of American constitutionalism, i.e., that the lawmaking power is reposed in the people as reflected in the work of the Legislature, and, absent a constitutional violation, the courts have no legitimacy in overruling or nullifying the ... N.W.2d 724 (2006) 461 (1975); People v. Lester, reversed or a new trial be ... 406 Mich. 252, 277 ... ...
-
People v. Griffin
...where there is evidence to support an instruction on the theory advanced, some instruction on the same must be given. People v. Lester, 406 Mich. 252, 277 N.W.2d 633 (1979). Although the trial court could have given greater attention to the defense theory in its charge, the essence of this ......