Opinion ID: 2121934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: (second issue) should trial court on own initiative have given instruction on lesser included offenses without request or objection?

Text: People v Allie, 216 Mich 133 (1921) is dispositive of this issue. It is a strong case because the defense cited a number of Michigan rape cases holding that the trial court must, upon his own initiative, instruct the jury as to the lesser offenses included in the offense charged. The prosecutor cited Michigan cases to the opposite effect. (P 135.) This Court looked to 3 Comp Laws 1915, § 15616 and observed: This statute would clearly give a defendant in a criminal case the right to have the jury instructed that he could be convicted of any of the included offenses. The question then arises, this Court said, whether it was reversible error for the trial court to neglect to give this instruction upon his own initiative. (P 136.) This Court thereupon considered the cases in the field and answered its own question  no, it is not reversible error, by affirming the conviction without the lesser offenses having been charged. Furthermore, in reaching this conclusion, this Court said that the rape cases requiring the trial court to charge on lesser included offenses on its own initative have gone too far    and    are out of line with the general rule    [and] must be modified to conform with the general rule. (P 138.) This rule was recognized, describing subsequent adopting cases, but distinguished, in People v Jones, 273 Mich 430 (1935). That case neatly described the rule:     in the absence of a request to charge, the court does not err in failing to instruct upon the included offenses. (P 432.) See also Sarazin v Johnson Creamery, Inc, 372 Mich 358, 363 (1964). To the same effect is section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (MCLA 768.29; MSA 28.1052) which reads as follows: It shall be the duty of the judge to control all proceedings during the trial, and to limit the introduction of evidence and the argument of counsel to relevant and material matters, with a view to the expeditious and effective ascertainment of the truth regarding the matters involved. The court shall instruct the jury as to the law applicable to the case and in his charge make such comment on the evidence, the testimony and character of any witnesses, as in his opinion the interest of justice may require. The failure of the court to instruct on any point of law shall not be ground for setting aside the verdict of the jury unless such instruction is requested by the accused. There is a different rule which is sometimes, and in this case was, confused with the rule in Allie. The distinction is carefully and aptly drawn in People v Jones, supra . As just noted, Jones described the Allie rule as     in the absence of a request to charge, the court does not err in failing to instruct upon the included offenses. Jones then went on: However, the rule does not excuse improper instructions. Here the court did more than fail to charge upon the included offenses. It affirmatively excluded them from the consideration from the jury. This was error because, under 3 Comp Laws 1929, § 17325, the jury was authorized to find the defendant guilty of a lesser offense than rape. (Emphasis added.) (273 Mich 430, 432.) To the same effect are People v Lemmons, 384 Mich 1 (1970); People v Guillett, 342 Mich 1 (1955); People v Hamilton, 76 Mich 212, 216 (1889); People v Murray, 72 Mich 10, 16 (1888); People v Reece, 9 Mich App 108 (1967). The error referred to in these cases one way or another is not that they failed to give a charge but that the charge that was given was improper and erroneous. Obviously, the instant case is not one where an improper charge is complained of. Rather it is one where the lesser included charges were not given. So the People v Jones rule relating to an improper charge is not applicable to this case. On the issue then as to whether it was reversible error for the trial court to fail on its own initiative to issue an instruction on lesser included charges, the law in Michigan is that such failure is not reversible error.