Case Name: PEOPLE v. WATTS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1975-05-28
Citations: 61 Mich. App. 309
Docket Number: Docket No. 19734
Parties: PEOPLE v WATTS
Judges: Before: J. H. Gillis, P. J., and Quinn and R. M. Maher, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 61
Pages: 309–314

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v WATTS
Opinion of the Court
1. Homicide — Manslaughter—Defenses—Self-Defense—Burden of Proof.
The burden, when a defendant introduces evidence of self-defense in a trial for manslaughter, is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense; the burden is not on the defendant to prove that he acted in self-defense.
2. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Misleading Instructions.
Instructions to the jury will be upheld when, upon reading the charge as a whole, it conclusively appears that the jury could not have been misled.
3. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Appeal and Error — Failure to Object — Preserving Question.
Failure of a defendant to object to a trial court’s instructions to the jury precludes appellate review of those instructions.
Dissent by R. M. Maher, J.
4. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Definition of Offense— Request for Instructions.
The trial judge in a criminal case should instruct the jury as to the general features of the case, define the offense and indicate that which is essential to prove in order to establish the offense, even in the absence of request for such instructions.
5. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Misleading Instructions —Burden of Proof.
A conviction for manslaughter should be reversed where the jury charge is misleading in that an instruction which placed the burden of proving self-defense upon the defendant was not cured by further speciñc statements by the trial court.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide § 249.
[2, 5] 75 Am Jur 2d, Trial § 624.
[3] 75 Am Jur 2d, Trial §§ 915, 916.
[4] 75 Am Jur 2d, Trial §§ 710-722.
[6] 75 Am Jur 2d, Trial §§ 628, 920.
6. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Conflicting Instructions.
It may be presumed that the jury followed the erroneous instruction where instructions to the jury conñict, one being correct and the other erroneous.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Robert L. Evans, J. Submitted Division 1 April 16, 1975,
at Detroit.
(Docket No. 19734.)
Decided May 28, 1975.
Leave to appeal denied, 394 Mich 829.
James Watts was convicted of manslaughter. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
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 Luvenia D. Dockett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Carl Ziemba, for defendant on appeal.
Before: J. H. Gillis, P. J., and Quinn and R. M. Maher, JJ.

Opinion:
J. H. Gillis, P. J.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of the crime of manslaughter, contrary to MCLA 750.321; MSA 28.553. He was sentenced to serve 4 to 15 years in prison, and now appeals as a matter of right.
Defendant has raised several issues on appeal, but only two of these merit discussion. The first is defendant's allegation that the trial court committed reversible error in its instructions to the jury on self-defense. Defendant claims that the trial court's instructions improperly shifted the burden of proving self-defense to the defendant. The people, however, contend that when read as a whole, the instructions adequately informed the jury that the burden on every issue was on the prosecution.
The instruction complained of was that if "you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant in attempting to prevent the taking of his property found himself in some personal physical danger [then] the defendant would have a right to use deadly force in his effort to prevent the taking of his property so long as he at the same time were defending himself from personal physical danger".
When a defendant introduces evidence supporting the defense of self-defense, "[t]he burden of proof to exclude the possibility that the killing was done in self-defense rests on the prosecution". People v Stallworth, 364 Mich 528, 535; 111 NW2d 742, 746 (1961), People v Jackson, 390 Mich 621, 626; 212 NW2d 918, 920 (1973). Thus, the burden is not on the defendant to prove that he acted in self-defense, but rather on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
However, when the charge is read as a whole, if it conclusively appears that the jury could not have been misled by the language complained of, the instructions will be upheld. People v Tubbs, 147 Mich 1, 12; 110 NW 132, 136 (1907), People v Jew, 21 Mich App 408, 412; 175 NW2d 544, 545-546 (1970).
In view of the fact that the court did instruct that the prosecution bears the burden of proving defendant's guilt and that the defendant does not assume any burden at all, that the defendant is presumed innocent throughout the entirety of the trial and that the court instructed on the definition of reasonable doubt, the jury was not misled to believe that defendant must prove his defense of self-defense.
It should also be noted that the defendant in this case did not offer any instructions to the court on the point in issue. Furthermore, defendant also failed to object to the complained-'of instructions, and thus failed to preserve the issue for appeal. People v Lee, 391 Mich 618, 640; 218 NW2d 655, 667 (1974), and People v Howard, 391 Mich 597, 602; 218 NW2d 20, 22 (1974).
Defendant also assigns as error that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury that their verdict must be unanimous. Our examination of the entire instruction given by the court leads us to conclude that such instructions are substantially in accord with those approved in People v King, 51 Mich App 788; 216 NW2d 76 (1974). In addition, defendant failed to object to the charge and when offered the opportunity to poll the jury, declined to do so.
Affirmed.
Quinn, J., concurred.