Case Name: PEOPLE v. HARRISON
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1976-09-08
Citations: 71 Mich. App. 226
Docket Number: Docket No. 26214
Parties: PEOPLE v HARRISON
Judges: Before: Bashara, P. J., and M. F. Cavanagh and D. T. Anderson, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 71
Pages: 226–231

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v HARRISON
Opinion op the Court
1. Criminal Law — Included Offenses — Instructions to Jury — Requests for Instruction — Retroactivity.
The Supreme Court decision which held that a trial court must honor a defendant’s request for jury instruction on lesser included offenses of the crime charged is applicable retroactively.
2. Drugs and Narcotics — Delivery—Procuring Agent Defense— Statutes.
The procuring agent defense is not available to a defendant charged with delivery of a controlled substance because under the Controlled Substances Act, a crime has been committed regardless of any agency relationship between the defendant and a narcotics agent or between the defendant and the suppliers if there is an actual, constructive, or attempted delivery.
3. Witnesses — Criminal Law — Res Gestae — Motions—Failure to Call — Appeal and Error.
A claim that the prosecution failed to call a res gestae witness should not be heard on appeal where there was neither a motion at trial to indorse the witness, although defendant knew the witness and the witness’s connection to the transaction, nor a motion for new trial on the ground of nonindorsement or nonproduction.
Concurrence by Bashara, P. J.
4. Criminal Law — Included Offenses — Instructions to Jury — Requests for Instruction — Duty to Instruct — Retroactivity— Evidence.
The recent Supreme Court decision which mandates that a de fendant’s request for jury instructions on lesser included offenses must be honored should not be applied retroactively; prior case law consistently had recognized that a trial court had no duty to give a requested jury instruction on a lesser included crime of attempt where the undisputed evidence presented at trial showed a completed offense or where the lesser charge was unsupported by the evidence.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 4] 20 Am Jur 2d, Courts § 233 et seq.
25 Am Jur 2d, Drugs, Narcotics, and Poisons §§ 43, 46, 47.
Entrapment to commit offense with respect to narcotics law. 33 ALR2d 883.
81 Am Jur 2d, Witnesses § 2.
Appeal from Oakland, Arthur E. Moore, J.
Submitted June 9, 1976, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 26214.)
Decided September 8, 1976.
Leave to appeal applied for.
William G. Harrison was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance. Defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, L. Brooks Patterson, Prosecuting Attorney, Robert C. Williams, Chief Appellate Counsel and James L. McCarthy, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Howard S. Siegrist, for defendant.
Before: Bashara, P. J., and M. F. Cavanagh and D. T. Anderson, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
M. F. Cavanagh, J.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance, MCLA 335.341; MSA 18.1070(41), and sentenced to 2 to 20 years imprisonment.
Defendant's conviction must be reversed because the trial judge refused to instruct on the lesser included offenses of attempted delivery and of possession despite defense counsel's request. People v Lovett, 396 Mich 101; 238 NW2d 44 (1976), People v Ora Jones, 395 Mich 379; 236 NW2d 461 (1975). The key issue is whether Ora Jones is retroactive. On the basis of People v Lovett, supra, we conclude that it is.
In Lovett the Supreme Court reversed a conviction because the trial judge failed to instruct on the lesser included offense of attempted armed robbery despite defense counsel's request. The Court reversed on the basis of Ora Jones and People v Henry, 395 Mich 367; 236 NW2d 489 (1975). Lovett did not discuss retroactivity; however, it applies Ora Jones retroactively, since Lovett's trial took place before the Jones decision. Lovett was on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of Jones. The instant case (claim of appeal filed, August 27, 1975) was on appeal to our Court at the time of Jones. We conclude that any discrepancy that might exist between Lovett, supra, and People v Thomas, 68 Mich App 302; 242 NW2d 564 (1976), would not have occurred had the Thomas panel been aware of the Supreme Court's application of Ora Jones, supra, in Lovett, supra.
Defendant's two other claims of error are without merit. Under the Controlled Substances Act of 1971, there is no procuring agent defense. People v Collins, 63 Mich App 376; 234 NW2d 531 (1975), People v Williams, 54 Mich App 448; 221 NW2d 204 (1974). As regards the alleged res gestae witness, there was neither a motion at trial to endorse the witness, although defendant knew the witness and the witness's connection to the transaction, nor a motion for new trial on the ground of nonendorsement or nonproduction.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
D. T. Anderson, J., concurred.