People v. Walker, Docket No. 10747
| Decision Date | 25 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 10747,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 198 N.W.2d 449,40 Mich.App. 142 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patsy Ann WALKER, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Gerald S. Surowiec, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Leonard Meyers, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BRONSON, P.J., and V. J. BRENNAN and O'HARA, * JJ.
Defendant was charged with second-degree murder (M.C.L.A. § 750.317; M.S.A. § 28.549) and convicted by a jury in Detroit Recorder's Court of the lesser offense of manslaughter (M.C.L.A. § 750.321; M.S.A. § 28.553).
In the early morning hours of July 18, 1970, defendant and two men, Michael Alfonsi and William Johnson, were riding in an automobile owned and being driven by Mr. Alfonsi. As the car slowed preparatory to allowing the defendant to alight, Mr Alfonsi noticed a second car following them and honking its horn. After both automobiles had stopped, the driver of the second car, Michael Yarbrough, approached the right-hand door of the Alfonsi vehicle, grabbed defendant's right arm with his left hand (defendant being seated next to the right-hand door) and pulled her from the car. Mr. Yarbrough then reached around the defendant with his right hand. At this point a gun discharged, fatally wounding Mr. Johnson. At the trial, it was the theory of the defense that the gun was held by Mr. Yarbrough when the fatal shot was fired. The testimony on this point was conflicting.
On appeal, defendant first argues that it was inappropriate and reversible error for the trial court to instruct the jury regarding aiding and abetting (M.C.L.A. § 767.39; M.S.A. § 28.979). The challenged aiding-and-abetting instruction was given by the trial court as follows:
'Now, there has been some testimony that there were two people at this car at the time the shot was fired.
'It is the contention of the defense that Michael Yarbrough fired the fatal shot.
'The statute of the State of Michigan, so far as the same is material, reads as follows:
"Every person concerned in the commission of an offense, whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense or procures, commits, aids, or abets in its commission, may thereafter be prosecuted, indicted, tried, and on conviction shall be punished as if he had directly committed such offense.'
'Under this statute, where two persons participate in the commission of a felony, such as charged in this Information, each is responsible for the acts of the other, provided they were done in pursuance of an understanding between the parties, or in futherance of a common purpose.
'Where two or more persons engage in an unlawful and felonious course of conduct, each is responsible for the acts of the other, and it is not defense that one did not actually perform the unlawful acts himself, if he was present and assisted in their commission.
'The assistance need not be physical, but may consist in mere encouragement.
'One who aids and assists another to perpetrate a crime is equally guilty with him for its commission.'
Counsel for defendant objected to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Buckey
...507, 98 N.W. 13 (1904); People v. Adams, supra; People v. Parks, 57 Mich.App. 738, 750, 226 N.W.2d 710 (1975); People v. Walker, 40 Mich.App. 142, 145, 198 N.W.2d 449 (1972).1 M.C.L. Sec. 750.520(g)(2); M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(7)(2).2 Immediately before this statement, the prosecutor said:"If yo......
-
People v. Drossart
...a witness to give his own opinion or interpretation of the facts because it invades the province of the jury. People v. Walker, 40 Mich.App. 142, 145, 198 N.W.2d 449 (1972); People v. O'Leary, 6 Mich.App. 115, 148 N.W.2d 516 (1967). The same rule applies when it is an expert opinion being o......
-
State v. Taplin
...664; Rodgers v. State, 213 Ga. 797, 102 S.E.2d 10 (1958); Napier v. Commonwealth, 306 Ky. 75, 206 S.W.2d 53 (1947); People v. Walker, 40 Mich.App. 142, 198 N.W.2d 449 (1972); People v. Davis, 32 Mich.App. 704, 189 N.W.2d 132 (1971). This is but an application of the general rule stated in R......
-
People v. Marshall
...704, 705, 189 N.W.2d 132, 133 (1971). It is a question of whether there is evidence of concert of action. People v. Walker, 40 Mich.App. 142, 144, 198 N.W.2d 449, 450 (1972). See, also, People v. Adams, 35 Mich.App. 408, 411, 192 N.W.2d 625, 626 (1971), and People v. Dawson, 32 Mich.App. 33......