People v. Rone
Decision Date | 22 September 1981 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 58436 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Junior C. RONE, Defendant-Appellant. 109 Mich.App. 702, 311 N.W.2d 835 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[109 MICHAPP 705] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Chief Appellate Asst. Pros. Atty., Appeals, and Timothy A. Baughman, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the people.
Strefling & Brode, P. C., Detroit, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
Before CAVANAGH, P. J., and KELLY and DeWITT, * JJ.
On April 19, 1978, defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, M.C.L. § 750.317; M.S.A. § 28.549, three counts of assault with intent to commit murder, M.C.L. § 750.83; M.S.A. § 28.278, and four counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, M.C.L. § 750.227b; M.S.A. § 28.424(2). Defendant was sentenced under the indeterminate sentencing act M.C.L. § 769.8 et seq.; M.S.A. § 28.1080 et seq., to life imprisonment on the second-degree murder count and to a prison term of from 10 to 30 years for each count of assault with intent to murder. He also received a mandatory two-year prison term for each of the four felony-firearm counts. Defendant's subsequent appeal of right to this Court resulted in an unpublished memorandum opinion affirming each of the convictions. People v. Rone, Docket No. 78-2461, released December 12, 1979. The decision was [109 MICHAPP 706] remanded to this Court on order of the Supreme Court, for "amplification of the reasons for its decision". 409 Mich. 903, 308 N.W.2d 97 (1980). We were also directed to consider "whether the trial court's unrequested instructions concerning the procedures to be followed after a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity constituted error" under People v. Cole, 382 Mich. 695, 172 N.W.2d 354 (1969). Pursuant to the Supreme Court's order, the Court issued a second opinion amplifying the reasons for our decision and considering the trial court's unrequested instruction. 101 Mich.App. 811, 300 N.W.2d 705 (1980). However, the second decision is now remanded to this Court on order of the Supreme Court because only two judges of the original panel considered the case during the first remand. 411 Mich. 984; 311 N.W.2d 702 (1981).
On September 2, 1977, defendant, while armed with a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle, entered the Band Drug Store in the City of Detroit. He was looking for the manager when, suddenly and without apparent provocation, he shot the pharmacist, Allen Margolis. Defendant then exited from the store, whereupon he encountered Mary and Robert Rish. He then asked Miss Rish if Robert was her "old man", and proceeded to shoot Robert in the side of the head.
Shortly after the above shootings, Detroit police officer James Lawless observed the defendant in the neighborhood carrying a rifle. When Lawless identified himself as a police officer, the defendant began shooting at him as well. Defendant then retreated into a nearby house where he was arrested. A subsequent search of the defendant's home disclosed the body of Mary Stevens, with whom the defendant had been living. Miss Stevens was later found to have been shot three times with a .22-caliber rifle.
[109 MICHAPP 707] During trial, the defense presented the testimony of Dr. Norman G. Pothyress, a clinical psychologist, in support of its proposed defense of insanity. Dr. Pothyress opined that the defendant was mentally ill at the time of the shootings. He also suggested that defendant had likely consumed a considerable amount of alcohol both on the day of and the day before the shootings.
Defendant first contests as a violation of due process this Court's denial of his motion for additional time to file an appellate brief. Defendant specifically alleges that this denial violated his due process right to effective oral arguments on appeal. On October 5, 1978, the defendant was provided with substitute appellate counsel, after the 60-day period for filing briefs provided in GCR 1963, 815.1(1) had expired. On October 19, 1978, defense counsel petitioned this Court for an additional 60 days to file his brief. We granted a 20-day extension in an order dated November 6, 1978.
This Court's authority to permit the filing of an appellant's brief more than 90 days after a claim of appeal or transcript is filed is governed by GCR 1963, 815.1(1). Under this rule, additional time may be ordered "for cause shown". We hold that no error was committed. Defendant's appellate brief was not in fact filed until February 26, 1979, three months after expiration of the original 20-day extension. Further, arguments were not scheduled on defendant's case until October, 1979; counsel made no motion for oral argument although the case call specifically noted the time requirements for filing motions and that "all attorneys not endorsed must move for oral argument". This allegation of error is not only meritless but specious.
Defendant next alleges as reversible error the [109 MICHAPP 708] trial court's decision, sua sponte, to instruct the jury on the post-trial effect of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial judge instructed as follows:
In Cole, supra, the Supreme Court considered as a matter of first impression the question whether a jury should be apprised of the consequences of returning a verdict of not guilty by reason of [109 MICHAPP 709] insanity. 1 The Court concluded in favor of the instruction, when requested by the defendant or jury. In so holding, the Cole Court adopted the rationale supporting the instruction expressed in Lyles v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 25, 254 F.2d 725 (1957):
" " Cole, supra, 382 Mich. at 719-720, 172 N.W.2d 354.
Accord, People v. Hampton, 384 Mich. 669, 674-676, 187 N.W.2d 404 (1971), People v. Gray, 57 Mich.App. [109 MICHAPP 710] 289, 297, 225 N.W.2d 733 (1975). See also People v. Ashford, 91 Mich.App. 693, 283 N.W.2d 830 (1979), in which the Court found no manifest injustice arising from the trial court's unobjected-to decision to instruct the jury, sua sponte, in this manner.
Two subsequent cases in this Court have considered the specific allegation of error raised by defendant. In People v. Samuelson, 75 Mich.App. 228, 254 N.W.2d 849 (1977), the Court interpreted the Cole reference to a request by the jury or defense counsel as impliedly prohibiting a sua sponte disposition instruction. The Samuelson Court did not, however, find the lower court's unrequested instruction to be reversible error. It concluded that the Cole "automatic commitment charge" mistakenly given by the trial court under M.C.L. § 767.27b; M.S.A. § 28.966(12), since repealed, 1974 P.A. 258, was more helpful to defendant's insanity defense than a disposition instruction under the then recently enacted Mental Health Code, M.C.L. § 330.2050; M.S.A. § 14.800(1050). 2
The more recent decision...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Moore
...821, 406 N.E.2d 385; People v. Cole (1969) 382 Mich. 695, 172 N.W.2d 354 [extended to sua sponte instructions in People v. Rone (1981) 109 Mich.App. 702, 311 N.W.2d 835].9 Hawaii Rev.Stat. (1976) section 704-402(2) amended 1980 Act 222; Mo.Rev.Stat. (Vernon Supp.1984) section 552.030(7).10 ......
-
People v. Cain
...jury with regard to a legal definition in order to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial. See People v. Rone (On Second Remand), 109 Mich.App. 702, 712-713, 311 N.W.2d 835 (1981). As we have said more than once in this opinion, competency is not an element of larceny over $100, M.C.L.......
-
People v. Young
... ... strategy."). The decision to forgo an instruction on a ... lesser included offense and instead attempt to "force ... the jury into an 'all or nothing' decision" does ... not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. People ... v. Rone (On Second Remand) , 109 Mich.App. 702, 718; 311 ... N.W.2d 835 (1981) ... Affirmed ... --------- ... Notes: ... [ 1 ] Defendant was charged and tried on a ... count of "open murder," but was acquitted of ... first-degree premeditated ... ...
-
Dargan v. Com.
...essential to a fair trial. See Shepperson v. Commonwealth, 19 Va.App. 586, 593, 454 S.E.2d 5, 9 (1995). See also People v. Rone, 109 Mich.App. 702, 311 N.W.2d 835, 839 (1981) (defendant's right to a jury trial "includes the right to a properly instructed jury"); Herbert v. Travelers Indemni......