Court Opinion

ID: 9504502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:56:42.333839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:02.765637
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
(dissenting). I would not decide this case by an opinion per curiam. Because this case offers the opportunity to address a jurisprudentiaily significant issue, I prefer to grant leave to appeal so that we might avail ourselves of full briefing and argument by the parties.
Preferences aside, however, I would limit the Court of Appeals reconsideration of defendant’s argument to the issue whether there was the necessary evidentiary support for the negligent homicide instruction. The majority once again extends the obiter dictum from People v Cornell, 466 Mich 335; 646 NW2d 127 *501(2002). I remain committed to the view that, when requested, a jury may be instructed on offenses inferior to the charged offense if such an instruction is supported by the evidence. People v Mendoza, 468 Mich 527, 549; 664 NW2d 685 (2003) (CAVANAGH, J., concurring). Because the trial court previously determined that the evidence did not support a negligent homicide instruction, the only relevant inquiry is whether such a determination was erroneous.
Kelly, J., concurred with Cavanagh, J.