Court Opinion

ID: 9701411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:19:03.219062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:44.413831
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C.J.
(dissenting). I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s disposition of defendant’s claim that the felony murder instructions must include a separate discussion of malice because I followed People v Fountain, 71 Mich App 491; 248 NW2d 589 (1976), in People v Langston, 86 Mich App 656; 273 NW2d 99 (1978). Since the trial court failed to instruct the jury that defendant cannot be liable for murder unless he acted with malice, I would reverse defendant’s conviction for first-degree felony murder but would order entry of a conviction for manslaughter with the people having the option of retrying defendant for first-degree felony murder.