Court Opinion

ID: 9657525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:29:13.06599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:46.176863
License: Public Domain

Lesinski, C. J.
(dissenting). In reviewing instructions given by the trial court in a charge to the jury, we are bound to review the entire charge to determine if error of instruction occurred.
Defendants assig-n as error the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as to the necessary elements of an attempt to commit larceny. More specifically, they assert that the trial court failed to apprise the jury that there must have been an overt act on the part of' the defendants to carry from the *21building personal property belonging to the1-complainant.
A reading of the charge reveals that the instructions given were adequate and contained no error. The duty of the trial judge, among others] is to apprise the jury, in sufficient language, of the essential elements of the crime charged. '■ a .
In part, the court charged as follows: ■'
“In order to constitute the offense of larceny* the following elements must be established. In . this case, what you will have before you, is an attempt to do these things: (1), an actual taking of the property; (2), a carrying away; (3), the taking -or carrying away with a felonious intent; (4), the property which it was attempted to take must be the personal property of another, and (5), the taking-must be without the consent of the owner.
“On the matter of larceny, any removal of goods, from the place where they had.been left by the owner, so that the person1 taking them,'if only for an instant, has them entirely in his possession, is sufficient carrying away if the taking is with a felonious intent; that is, to wrongfully deprive the owner of the property.”
There is no obligation on the part of the trial judge to characterize elements of a crime as overt acts if, in fact, he sufficiently states the acts required to constitute overt acts.
In instructing the jury that it was necessary to have an attempt at the actual taking, carrying away with felonious intent the property of another without the consent of the owner, the court properly advised the jury that more than a mere intention to commit the crime was required. The court effectively instructed the jury that it must find acts toward fulfillment of an evil intent for it to find the defendant guilty of the offense charged.
*22The writer does not find the law of Michigan to be that it was necessary for the prosecution to show that the attempt was to get the property out of the building. The court properly instructed the jury that if the attempt to take the property was for an instant and with a felonious intent, that is, wrongfully to deprive the owner of his property, the attempt to commit a larceny was complete.
Although it may have been more illuminating to the jury to rephrase the charge to indicate that mere felonious or evil intent is not enough to constitute an attempt, in view of the total charge, it was not error not to do so. The charge as given cannot properly be read to suggest to the jury that this was all they needed to find.
The writer agrees with the statement of law and conclusions found in section I of Judge Levin’s opinion.
I would vote to affirm.