Opinion ID: 1745833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: primary legal principles

Text: LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE INSTRUCTIONS This Court addressed the legal doctrines necessary to resolve issues involving lesser included offense instructions in People v Beach, supra at 460-465. In Beach, we reaffirmed the distinction between necessary and cognate lesser included offenses. Necessarily included lesser offenses are those in which the defendant cannot commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense. On the other hand, cognate lesser included offenses are those in which the lesser offense shares some common elements with the greater offense, but which may also include some elements not found in the greater offense. Id. at 461; People v Ora Jones, 395 Mich 379; 236 NW2d 461 (1975). This distinction becomes important in determining when a trial judge must instruct the jury with regard to a particular lesser included offense. In Beach, this Court articulated the following rule: [W]hen the lesser offense is necessarily included, rather than cognate, the evidence will always support the lesser offense if it supports the greater. However, cognate offenses require the evidence in each particular trial to be examined to determine whether the specific evidence adduced would support a conviction of the requested lesser offense. ... A Michigan defendant may request and receive necessarily included offense instructions without regard to the evidence, and a cognate lesser included offense instruction if the evidence adduced at trial would support a conviction of the requested lesser offense. [ Id. at 463-465.] It is against this backdrop that we must decide the cases before us today.