Case Name: PEOPLE v. EMBREE
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1976-03-23
Citations: 68 Mich. App. 40
Docket Number: Docket No. 21493
Parties: PEOPLE v EMBREE
Judges: Before: Danhof, P. J., and Quinn and D. E. Holbrook, Jr., JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 68
Pages: 40–47

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v EMBREE
Opinion op the Court
1. Homicide — Murder—Alternative Counts — -Felony Murder— Premeditation — Jury—Unanimous Verdict — Statutes.
A defendant charged with alternative counts of premeditated and felony murder is not entitled to know upon which theory of first-degree murder he was convicted by a jury, in order to insure his right to a unanimous verdict, where sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction on either count (MCLA 750.316; MSA 28.548).
2. Homicide — First-Degree Murder — Second-Degree Murder— Premeditation — Felony Murder.
Premeditation and proof of a felony both serve the same purpose of elevating an otherwise second-degree murder to the crime of murder in the first degree.
3. Appeal and Error — Criminal Law.
Appellate courts should not reverse a conviction unless the error was prejudicial.
Dissent by D. E. Holbrook, Jr., J.
4. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Right to Fair Trial.
The right to a properly instructed jury is fundamental to the right to receive a fair trial.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide § 534.
[2, 7-9, 11] 40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide § 72.
[3] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 968.
[4] 75 Am Jur 2d, Trial § 607.
[5] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 553.
75 Am Jur 2d, Trial § 906.
[6] 75 Am Jur 2d, Trial § 884.
[10] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 810.
5. Criminal Law — Appeal and Error — Instructions to Jury— Failure to Object — Right to Fair Trial.
Failure to object to jury instructions ordinarily precludes appellate review; however, an appellate court should not require an objection to preserve an issue for review where the instructional error strikes deeply at the right to a fair trial, particularly where the alleged error concerns an. erroneous or misleading instruction rather than one that merely omits a pertinent point.
6. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Unanimous Verdict— Reasonable Doubt — Proofs—Elements of Crime.
A trial court is required to inform the jury that they must unanimously agree that the prosecution has proven all of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
7. Homicide — First-Degree Murder — Alternative Elements — Premeditation — Felony Murder — Statutes.
The ñrst-degree murder statute, unlike most other criminal statutes, allows the prosecutor to prove the crime through the use of alternative elements: he may show that te defendant committed a common law murder with deliberation and premeditation or he may show that the defendant committed a common law murder during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of one of the enumerated felonies (MCLA 750.316: MSA 28.548).
8. Homicide — Murder—Premeditation.
The prosecution must show that a defendant had time to reñect on his actions in order to show that a murder was premeditated.
9. Homicide — Felony Murder — Accidental Killings — Statutes.
An accidental killing committed during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of one of the enumerated felonies is ñrstdegree murder (MCLA 750.316; MSA 28.548).
10. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Harmless Error — Material Matters.
An erroneous jury instruction on a material matter must be regarded as prejudicial where the error is not corrected or cured in the charge to the jury.
11. Homicide — First-Degree Murder — Premeditation—Felony Murder — Instructions to Jury — Unanimous Verdict — Failure to Object.
The jury in a ñrst-degree murder trial of a defendant charged with alternative counts of premeditated and felony murder should be instructed that they are required to unanimously agree that the prosecution has proven each element of either count in order to convict the defendant; failure to do so is reversible error even though the defendant failed to object.
Appeal from Kent, George V. Boucher, J.
Submitted December 2, 1975, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 21493.)
Decided March 23, 1976.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Richard D. Embree was convicted of first-degree murder. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Harold S. Sawyer, Prosecuting Attorney, Donald A. Johnston III, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, and Craig S. Neckers, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Bergstrom, Slyhouse & Shaw, P. C (by James G. Black), for defendant.
Before: Danhof, P. J., and Quinn and D. E. Holbrook, Jr., JJ.

Opinion:
Quinn, J.
Defendant was charged with first-degree murder in a two-count information. Count I charged deliberate and premeditated murder; count II charged felony murder. Both offenses are specified in MCLA 750.316; MSA 28.548 as murder in the first degree. The evidence at trial supported both counts. The jury verdict was guilty of first-degree murder. Defendant was sentenced and this appeal followed.
The only issue raised that merits discussion is stated by defendant as follows:
'Did the trial court's instructions fail to adequately inform the jury as to their obligation to reach a unanimous verdict?"
This issue was not preserved for appeal, but it has been resolved contrary to defendant's position, People v Fullwood, 51 Mich App 476, 481; 215 NW2d 594 (1974), lv den, 393 Mich 785 (1975). Furthermore, as stated in People v Sparks, 53 Mich App 452, 458; 220 NW2d 153 (1974), lv den, 393 Mich 135; 224 NW2d 481 (1974):
"Functionally, premeditation and the proof of a felony serve the same purpose, elevating an otherwise second-degree murder to the crime of murder in the first degree."
Finally, "appellate courts should not reverse a conviction unless the error was prejudicial", People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 562; 194 NW2d 709 (1972). If any error occurred, no prejudice has been shown.
Affirmed.
Danhof, P. J., concurred.