Case Name: PEOPLE v. PAGE
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1977-03-01
Citations: 73 Mich. App. 667
Docket Number: Docket No. 24071
Parties: PEOPLE v PAGE
Judges: Before: R. M. Maher, P. J., and D. E. Holbrook and N. J. Kaufman, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 73
Pages: 667–682

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v PAGE
Opinion op the Court
1. Criminal Law—Evidence—Lesser Included Offenses.
Evidence which supports a greater offense will always support a lesser offense where the lesser offense is necessarily included within the greater offense.
2. Larceny—Breaking and Entering—Lesser Included Offenses.
Attempted larceny in a building is a necessarily included offense to a charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny.
3. Criminal Law—Lesser Included Offenses—Instructions to Jury—Appeal and Error.
A trial judge must give instructions to the jury on necessarily included offenses where these instructions are requested by a defendant and a defendant’s conviction should be reversed where a trial judge refused to give such instructions.
Dissent by D. E. Holbrook, J.
4. Criminal Law—Lesser Included Offenses—-Instructions to the Jury—Evidence—Appeal and Error.
The duty of a trial judge to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses is determined by the evidence and, if evidence has been presented which would support a conviction of a lesser included offense, refusal to give a requested instruction is reversible error.
References for Points in Headnotes
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 9.
75 Am Jur 2d, Trial §§ 876-882.
75 Am Jur 2d, Trial § 617.
13 Am Jur 2d, Burglary § 69.
20 Am Jur 2d, Courts §§ 64, 67, 69.
81 Am Jur 2d, Witnesses §§ 597-599.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 545 etseq.
75 Am Jur 2d, Trial §§ 576-599.
75 Am Jur 2d, Trial § 906 et seq.
5. Criminal Law—Lesser Included Offenses—Instructions to the Jury—First:Degree Murder—Appeal and Error.
A trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses will not be regarded as reversible error absent a request for such an instruction, with the sole exception of ffrstdegree murder cases.
6. Criminal Law—Lesser Included Offenses—Instructions to the Jury—Maximum Incarceration Period.
A court may not instruct a jury, in a criminal matter, on lesser included offenses for which the maximum allowable incarceration period is one year or less where the charged offense is punishable by incarceration for more than two years.
7. Witnesses—Criminal Law—Instructions to Jury—Cognate Lesser Offenses.
A trial judge should recognize the jury’s right to believe or disbelieve any or all of a witness’s testimony in determining whether to instruct the jury on a cognate lesser offense.
8. Larceny—Lesser Included Offenses—Burglary—Larceny in a Building—Instructions to Jury—Evidence.
Larceny in a building is not a necessarily included offense in a burglary; therefore a trial judge was justified in not instructing a jury as to larceny or attempted larceny at a defendant’s trial on a charge of burglary where there was little, if any, substantive evidence of larceny presented.
9. Courts—Judgment—Supreme Court—Retroactive Effect— Prospective Effect.
Changes in law by the Michigan Supreme Court must only have prospective application where the Court does not declare that the changes are to be applied retroactively.
10. Witnesses—Criminal Law—Evidence—Credibility of Witnesses—Prior Inconsistent Statements—Impeachment.
It is proper for the prosecution to attack a defense witness’s credibility by introducing testimony from an investigating police officer as to the witness’s prior inconsistent statements made to the officer, and the mere fact that this impeachment occurs through the use of statements concerning the commission of the crime with which the defendant is charged is insufficient to disallow its use as impeachment evidence.
11. Appeal and Error—Issues on Appeal—Preserving Issue—Failure to Object.
An issue may not be raised on appeal where proper objection had not been timely made.
12. Criminal Law—Instructions to Jury—Defendant’s Theory of the Case—Request for Instruction.
There is a duty for a trial judge to instruct the jury on the defendant’s theory of a case only if a proper request is made and it is supported by competent testimony.
13. Witnesses—Criminal Law—Instructions to Jury—Credibility of Witnesses—Limiting Instructions—Prejudice—Prior Inconsistent Statements—Appeal and Error.
A trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury sua sponte that impeachment testimony is to be considered only as affecting the credibility of a defense witness and not as substantive proof of a defendant’s guilt is not reversible error where the defendant does not request a limiting instruction and no objection is raised as to the trial court’s instructions concerning this testimony, and where there is no demonstration or likelihood of prejudice and neither the court nor the prosecutor has suggested to the jury that the prior inconsistent statement could be used as substantive evidence.
Appeal from Wayne, Richard D. Dunn, J.
Submitted November 4, 1976, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 24071.)
Decided March 1, 1977.
Richardo Page was convicted of attempted breaking and entering. Defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Patricia J. Boyle, Principal Attorney, Research, Training and Appeals, and Charles P. Kellett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
George Stone, for defendant.
Before: R. M. Maher, P. J., and D. E. Holbrook and N. J. Kaufman, JJ.

Opinion:
R. M. Maher, P. J.
Defendant's conviction of attempted breaking and entering, MCLA 750.110; MSA 28.305, and MCLA 750.92; MSA 28.287, must be reversed.
Judge Holbrook's opinion accurately recites the facts. Our disagreement with his opinion involves the question of instructions on lesser included offenses, specifically the requested instruction on attempted larceny in a building, MCLA 750.360; MSA 28.592, and MCLA 750.92; MSA 28.287.
The common-law test for lesser included offenses required "that the lesser must be such that it is impossible to commit the greater without first having committed the lesser". People v Ora Jones, 395 Mich 379, 387; 236 NW2d 461 (1975). The lesser is necessarily included in the greater, and "[i]f the lesser offense is one that is necessarily included within the greater, the evidence will always support the lesser if it supports the greater". Ora Jones, 395 Mich at 390.
Three cases are offered to support the proposition that attempted larceny in a building is not a necessarily included offense in a charge of breaking and entering. Two recent decisions of this Court supporting this proposition, People v Keatts, 54 Mich App 618; 221 NW2d 455 (1974), rev'd, 396 Mich 803; 237 NW2d 474 (1976), and People v Robert Brown, 72 Mich App 749; 250 NW2d 522 (1976), both cite to People v Huffman, 315 Mich 134; 23 NW2d 236 (1946). But, as Judge Bashara pointed out in his dissent in Keatts, 54 Mich App at 623, Huffman only held that a completed larceny in a building is not a lesser included offense of breaking and entering. Judge Bashara's dissent analyzed the elements of attempted larceny in a building and the elements of breaking and entering and correctly concluded that the crime of attempted larceny in a building is encompassed by the crime of breaking and entering:
"Analyzing the elements, the felonious intent is the same, and the overt act can be the breaking and entering. The greater offense is completed upon the breaking and entering, while the lesser upon an overt act." 54 Mich App at 623.
The order of the Supreme Court reversing the decision of this Court in Keatts, 396 Mich 803; 237 NW2d 474 (1976), does not disclose whether the Court approved Judge Bashara's analysis. We agree with his analysis, and view attempted larceny in a building as a necessarily included offense to a charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny.
In People v Lovett, 396 Mich 101; 238 NW2d 44 (1976), the Supreme Court reversed a conviction for larceny from the person because the trial court refused to give a requested instruction on attempted armed robbery, an offense necessarily included in the charge of armed robbery. The Court in Lovett did not explain why it reversed a conviction entered prior to its opinion in Ora Jones, supra, on the basis of the pronouncement in Ora Jones that requested instructions on necessarily included offenses must be given. People v Hearn, 354 Mich 468; 93 NW2d 302 (1958), People v Stevens, 9 Mich App 531; 157 NW2d 495 (1968), and a large number of other opinions before Ora Jones supported the trial court's refusal to instruct on attempted armed robbery. We feel constrained to follow Lovett, and reverse defendant's conviction because the trial court refused to give the requested instruction on the necessarily included offense of attempted larceny in a building.
Reversed and remanded.
N. J. Kaufman, J., concurred.
An attempted larceny need not be directed at any specific article or property. For example, reaching into an empty pocket may constitute attempted larceny. People v Jones, 46 Mich 441; 9 NW 486 (1881). The intent element of attempted larceny in a building is therefore no different than the intent element of breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny. In neither crime must there be an intent to steal a particular object.