Case Name: PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1977-04-18
Citations: 75 Mich. App. 53
Docket Number: Docket No. 26985
Parties: PEOPLE v WILLIAMS
Judges: Before: D. C. Riley, P. J., and T. M. Burns and Beasley, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 75
Pages: 53–58

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v WILLIAMS
Opinion op the Court
1. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Intent to Commit Murder.
An instruction to the jury in a prosecution for assault with intent to commit murder which informs the jury that intent to take life is presumed by law from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner that would naturally, ordinarily and probably take life is clearly erroneous; such an instruction removes from the prosecution the burden of proving an essential element of the crime charged and removes from the jury the right to decide that the defendant did not intend to kill.
2. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Reversible Error — Absence op Objection.
An erroneous jury instruction denies a criminal defendant the right to have a properly instructed jury pass upon the evidence, and where the instruction omits a legally essential ingredient, the error is reversible, even absent a request or an objection.
Dissent by Beasley, J.
3. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Absence op Objection— Manifest Injustice.
The Court of Appeals will reverse a conviction because of an erroneous instruction to the jury, where no objection was made at trial, only where there is manifest injustice.
4. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Reversible Error — Manifest Injustice.
An instruction to the jury in a prosecution for assault with intent to commit murder which erroneously informed the jury that intent to take life is presumed from the use of a deadly weapon in a manner that would naturally, ordinarily and probably take life was not reversible error where, viewing the instruction in its entirety, in the context of overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, there was no manifest injustice.
References por Points in Headnotes
[1] 40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide § 472.
Homicide: presumption of deliberation or premeditation from the circumstances attending the killing. 96 ALR2d 1435.
[2] 75 Am Jur 2d, Trial § 656 et seq.
[3, 4] 75 Am Jur 2d, Trial § 906 et seq.
Appeal from Genesee, Donald R. Freeman, J.
Submitted February 2, 1977, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 26985.)
Decided April 18, 1977.
Don Williams was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder. Defendant appeals by leave granted.
Reversed and remanded.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Robert F. Leonard, Prosecuting Attorney, Donald A. Kuebler, Chief, Appellate Division, and Joel B. Saxe, Senior Assistant Appellate Prosecutor, for the people.
Martin F. Palus, for defendant on appeal.
Before: D. C. Riley, P. J., and T. M. Burns and Beasley, JJ.

Opinion:
T. M. Burns, J.
On August 5, 1975, defendant was convicted by a jury of assault with intent to commit murder, MCLA 750.83; MSA 28.278. He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. We granted defendant's application for delayed appeal on February 2, 1976.
Defendant was employed by Carl Goldfarb in an auto wash business. On March 19, 1975, defendant shot Goldfarb during an argument.
Defendant makes several arguments for reversal. One has merit.
In defining "intent to commit murder" for the jury, the trial court instructed:
"The testimony in this cause, as you well know, indicates that there was a dangerous weapon used. A deadly weapon or a dangerous weapon is defined as an instrument which reasonably and likely could produce death or serious bodily injury from the manner in which it is used.
"The law further says, with respect to this use of weapons, this: When a man assaults another with, or uses upon another a deadly weapon, in such a manner that the natural, ordinary, probable use of such deadly weapon in such manner would be to take a life, the law presumes that such a person so assaulting intended to take life. That is the inference, the presumption, that the law provides, with respect to the use of a deadly weapon."
The instructions were clearly erroneous. People v Martin, 392 Mich 553; 221 NW2d 336 (1974), People v Conway, 70 Mich App 629; 247 NW2d 317 (1976). The trial court removed from the prosecution the burden of proving an essential element of the crime charged and took from the jury the right to decide that defendant did not intend to kill.
Defendant's failure to object to the instructions does not preclude reversal. An erroneous charge denies defendant the right to have a properly instructed jury pass upon the evidence. People v Martin, supra at 562. Where, as in the case at bar, the charge omits a legally essential ingredient, the error is reversible even absent request or objection. See People v St Cyr, 392 Mich 605; 221 NW2d 389 (1974).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
D. C. Riley, P. J., concurred.