Court Opinion

ID: 9676621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:28:54.283709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:49.778863
License: Public Domain

Brickley, J.
I concur in the reasoning and result of the opinion of the Chief Justice in People v Heflin. I concur in the result in People v Landrum, but write separately to indicate a somewhat different analysis.
In People v Landrum, to the extent that the defendant is entitled to an instruction regarding involuntary manslaughter sua sponte,1 the fact that the jury passed over a voluntary manslaughter instruction and found the defendant guilty of second-degree murder indicates it had no misgivings about the defendant’s malice. Although the defense of excessive force in the execution of self-defense was, in my judgment, more in keeping with involuntary manslaughter than voluntary manslaughter, the jury could have settled on voluntary manslaughter because it would not necessarily have been inconsistent with the evidence presented in the case. I therefore find no manifest injustice in the failure to give this instruction.
I also find no manifest injustice in any deficiency in the unobjected to self-defense instruction for the reasons set forth in the analysis of the Chief Justice._
*516I therefore concur in the reversal of the Court of Appeals in both cases.

 See People v Arthur Jones, 419 Mich 577; 358 NW2d 837 (1984) (Boyle, J., dissenting).