Case Name: PEOPLE v. PERKINS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1968-04-24
Citations: 11 Mich. App. 170
Docket Number: Docket No. 2,498
Parties: PEOPLE v. PERKINS.
Judges: J. H. Gtllis, J., concurred with Holbrook, J.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 11
Pages: 170–173

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. PERKINS.
Opinion op the Court.
1. Criminal Law — Appeal and Error — Instructions.
Failure to instruct jury in prosecution for manslaughter, where defense was self-defense, concerning the law relative to defendant’s claim that he first became involved in the fight by going to the aid of a friend, when such a eharge was not requested in the trial court and where the court properly instructed the jury concerning the law of self-defense held, not to be error where the law pertinent to defendant’s theory as presented in the trial court was properly dealt with by trial judge (CL 1948, § 750.321).
2. Appeal and Error — Criminal Law — Instructions—Objection.
A defendant in a criminal action may not assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction not relating to a necessary legal point or an essential ingredient of the crime unless he objects before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating specifically the matters to which he objects and the grounds of his objection (GCR 1963, 516.2).
References for Points in Headnotes
[1-3] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 623; 53 Am Jur, Trial § 511.
Separate Opinion.
Quinn, P. J.
3. Criminal Law. — Instruction—Request.
Conviction of defendant for manslaughter where defendant asserted self-defense and court properly instructed on that point was proper, and since defendant neither requested an instruction concerning his theory of defense raised on appeal nor objected to the charge given he cannot assign error for failure to give the instruction (CL 1948, § 750.821; GCZ 1968, 516.2).
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Sche-manske (Frank G.), J.
Submitted Division 1 January 9, 1968, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 2,498.)
Decided April 24, 1968.
William Perkins, Jr., was convicted of manslaughter. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cabalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer and Luvenia D. Dockett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Chester Kasiborski, for defendant on appeal.

Opinion:
Holbrook, J.
On June 17, 1966, defendant William Perkins, Jr., was convicted by a jury of the crime of manslaughter and on July 5, 1966, was sentenced by the court to a prison term of 3 to 15 years.
Defendant has appealed and one question is raised for review, vis.: In a prosecution for manslaughter, where the defense was self-clefense and the court properly instructed the jury concerning the law of self-defense, was it error for the trial court to fail to instruct the jury concerning the law relative to defendant's claim that he first became involved in the fight by going to the aid of a friend, even though no such charge was requested?
This Court is experiencing more and more instances of appeals in criminal cases, as in this case, where appellate counsel was not trial counsel. Usually trial counsel must make decisions as to strategy, theory of defense, and requests to charge. Now it is true that appellate counsel has the benefit of knowing where there has been a conviction that the strategy, theory, and requests to charge were not successful in the trial court. Therefore, as in this case, absent improper instructions or failure to charge on essential elements of the crime, a different theory of defense is raised on appeal. Without a request covering the point having been made in the trial court and with no charge on the point given consistent with the theory of defense advanced in the appellate court, error is alleged.
The court properly instructed on the law of self-defense. From a careful reading of the evidence, it appears to this Court that the law pertinent to defendant's theory of defense presented in the trial court was properly dealt with by the trial judge. There was no requested instruction by trial counsel concerning the theory and issue raised here on appeal. There were no objections to the instructions of the trial judge either before or after they were given. Although an instruction on the theory of defense raised on appeal may have concerned a pertinent point of the case, it was not legally a necessary point nor an essential ingredient of the crime. Absent a request it was not error to fail to give the instruction. People v. Liggett (1967), 378 Mich 706. GCR 1963, 516.2 controls. A full review of the trial record and the instructions given convinces us that no reversible error was committed. See People v. Keys (1968), 9 Mich App 482:
Affirmed.
J. H. Gtllis, J., concurred with Holbrook, J.
CL 1948, § 750.321 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.553),