People v. Wright

• Decision Date: 08 September 1977
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 26356 and 30055
• Citation: People v. Wright, 259 N.W.2d 443, 78 Mich.App. 246 (Mich. App. 1977)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold Ricardo WRIGHT and Salvadore Perez, Defendants-Appellants. 78 Mich.App. 246, 259 N.W.2d 443
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 443

259 N.W.2d 443

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Arnold Ricardo WRIGHT and Salvadore PerezDefendants-Appellants.

Docket Nos. 26356 and 30055.

78 Mich.App. 246, 259 N.W.2d 443

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Sept. 8, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1977.

Released for Publication Nov. 16, 1977.

[78 MICHAPP 246]O. Lee Molette, Detroit, for Wright.

Joel S. Brown, Southfield, Carl Ziemba, Detroit, of counsel for Perez.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol.Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros.Atty., Edward R. Wilson, Appellate Chief, Asst. Pros.Atty., Raymond P. Walsh, Asst. Pros.Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

[78 MICHAPP 247]Before MAHER, P. J., and KAUFMAN and BORCHARD, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is a criminal case involving conspiracy to deliver heroin and separate counts of delivery of heroin.Defendant Perez was found guilty in a jury trial of conspiracy to deliver heroin and on one count of delivery of heroin.Defendant Wright was convicted of conspiracy to deliver heroin and of three counts of delivery.Defendants appeal as a matter of right.

Although both defendants make several claims of error, we find one issue dispositive.Defendants contend that the trial court committed reversible error in its instructions to the jury regarding intent.The trial judge instructed the jury as follows "The question of intent is one that is hard to establish directly, because grown persons do not always disclose the object they have in view in any acts in which they may indulge.And you as jurors will have to gather the intent of the individual from the character of the act, from the circumstances surrounding it, and from conduct of a like character which may appear as tending to aid you in finding and discovering his or her intent.

"But in connection with all this, unless the testimony satisfies you of something else, you are warranted in holding a party responsible for the natural, the probable, and the legitimate consequences of his or her acts.The intent may be presumed from the doing of a wrongful or a fraudulent or an illegal act.But this inference or this presumption is not necessarily conclusive.

"The law presumes that every man or woman intends the natural, the probable, and the legitimate consequences of his or her own willful and voluntary acts.And wrongful acts knowingly or intentionally committed[78 MICHAPP 248] can neither be justified nor excused on the ground of innocent intent."(Emphasis supplied.)

In a criminal case, the burden remains upon the prosecution throughout the trial to prove each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368(1970).The instructions given in this case, it is argued, have the effect of shifting, at least in the minds of the jurors, the burden of proof with respect to one of the elements of the crime, namely, specific intent.We agree.

An instruction on intent similar to that used by the trial court in the instant case was condemned in People v. Smith, 67 Mich.App. 145, 240 N.W.2d 475(1976), which extensively discussed cases dealing with instructions on presuming intent.This Court stated:

"The trial court's instruction * * * had the effect of improperly directing the jury to look to defendant for evidence...