Case Name: PEOPLE v. WILSON
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1978-07-17
Citations: 84 Mich. App. 636
Docket Number: Docket No. 30487
Parties: PEOPLE v WILSON
Judges: Before: R. M. Maher, P. J., and M. F. Cavanagh and N. J. Kaufman, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 84
Pages: 636–655

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v WILSON
Docket No. 30487.
Submitted November 2, 1977, at Grand Rapids.
Decided July 17, 1978.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Ronald Wilson was convicted in Van Burén Circuit Court, Meyer Warshawsky, J., of first-degree murder, Defendant appeals, alleging error in the trial court’s instructions to the jury. Held;
The trial court’s instruction that the defendant could be found guilty of first-degree murder if he "consciously intended to commit the crime of robbery” erroneously allowed the jury to convict the defendant of murder without a finding of malice, Such a finding is tantamount to a finding of guilty of manslaughter. Therefore, the case is remanded for entry of a judgment of conviction of manslaughter and for resentencing,
Reversed and remanded.
N. J. Kaufman, J., dissented. He would hold that an instruction on the element of malice is not necessary because of the statute which makes a felony murder first-degree murder, Because of the disagreement in the Court of Appeals on this issue, however, Judge Kaufman feels that, to be safe, trial courts should instruct juries on malice in felony-murder cases.
Opinion of the Court
1. Homicide — Murder—First-Degree Murder — Instructions to Jury — Malice.
An instruction to the jury in a trial for a murder which occurred during a robbery that the defendant could be found guilty of first-degree murder if he "consciously intended to commit the crime of robbery” was erroneous because the instruction allowed the jury to convict the defendant of murder without a finding that he acted with malice.
2. Homicide — First-Degree Murder — Malice—Instructions to Jury — Manslaughter.
A jury verdict finding a defendant guilty of first-degree murder under instructions from the trial court which excluded the element of malice is tantamount to a conviction of manslaughter; the remedy for the erroneous conviction, therefore, is a remand for entry of a judgment of conviction of manslaughter and for resentencing.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2, 5] 40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide § 498 et seq.
[3] 40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide §§ 265, 267.
[4] 40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide § 72.
3. Homicide — Malice—Use of Deadly Weapon — Inference—Presumption.
Malice is a permissible inference and not a presumption which a jury in a trial for homicide may draw from the use of a deadly weapon.
Dissent by N. J. Kaufman, J.
4. Homicide — Felony Murder — First-Degree Murder — Malice— Statutes.
The ñrst-degree murder statute makes ñrst-degree murder of a killing which occurs during the perpetration of any of a number of listed felonies; malice is imputed to the act of killing from the intent to commit the underlying felony (MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548).
5. Homicide — Felony Murder — Malice—Instructions to Jury.
The issue of whether or not a trial court must instruct the jury on malice in a felony murder case depends upon the facts in each case; it would be better if trial courts did instruct on malice in all felony murder cases.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Ward S. Hamlin, Jr., Prosecuting Attorney (by Thomas C. Nelson, Assistant Attorney General, Prosecuting Attorneys Appellate Service), for the people.
Daniel J. Wright, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for defendant on appeal.
Before: R. M. Maher, P. J., and M. F. Cavanagh and N. J. Kaufman, JJ.

Opinion:
M. F. Cavanagh, J.
A jury convicted defendant of first-degree (felony) murder. MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, and appeals by right.
With respect to the element of malice in the jury instructions on first-degree murder, the court charged that defendant might be found guilty if defendant "consciously intended to commit the crime of robbery". Although this was error, People v Fountain, 71 Mich App 491; 248 NW2d 589 (1976), the appropriate remedy is not a reversal of defendant's conviction and a remand for retrial. The error in these instructions is that they allowed the jury to convict the defendant of murder without finding that he acted with malice. However, as was explained in People v Clark, 5 Mich App 672, 676; 147 NW2d 704, 706 (1967), lv den, 379 Mich 763 (1967), murder, absent malice, is manslaughter, " 'the unlawful killing of another without malice, express or implied.' 'Manslaughter is distinguished from murder in that the element of malice, express or implied, which is the very essence of murder is absent.' " (Citations omitted.) Thus, even if the jury here convicted the defendant without a finding of malice, their verdict, on these instructions, is tantamount to a conviction of manslaughter. Cf. People v Jenkins, 395 Mich 440, 442-443; 236 NW2d 503, 504 (1975).
Accordingly, defendant's conviction for first-degree murder is reversed and the case remanded for entry of a judgment of conviction of the lesser included offense of manslaughter and for resentencing. If, however, the prosecuting attorney is persuaded that the ends of justice would be better served, upon notification to the trial court before resentencing, the trial court shall vacate the judgment of conviction and grant a new trial on the charge that the defendant committed the crime of first-degree murder. See People v Jenkins, supra, 395 Mich at 442-443; 236 NW2d at 504.
Should the prosecutor elect to retry defendant the jury should be instructed that malice is a permissible inference that the jury may draw from the use of a deadly weapon, and not a presumption. See People v Martin, 392 Mich 553, 561; 221 NW2d 336, 340 (1974). Also, upon proper request defendant shall be entitled to an instruction on the lesser included offense of robbery. MCL 750.530; MSA 28.798. People v Ora Jones, 395 Mich 379; 236 NW2d 461 (1975). See People v Anderson, 62 Mich App 475, 482; 236 NW2d 620, 624 (1975).
R. M. Maher, P. J., concurred.