Court Opinion

ID: 9671236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:33:13.931027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:08.848522
License: Public Domain

T. Gr. Kavanagh, J.
(dissenting). The Court of Appeals held that there was no evidence in the record to support the defendant’s conviction on the first two counts of perjury and reversed on these two counts. This was entirely proper.
The Court then held that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction on the third count and remanded for resentencing in light of the reversal on the first two counts.
While I agree that the record contains sufficient evidence to convict on the third count, I do not think resentencing will suffice.
It is well established that conviction of a lesser included offense cannot stand when no evidence of the higher included offenses is adduced at the trial. People v. Hansen (1962), 368 Mich 344; People v. Marshall (1962), 366 Mich 498; People v. Stahl, (1926) 234 Mich 569.
A reading of those cases discloses the rationale of this Court that the possibility of compromise among the jurors is what taints the conviction where consideration of one of the factors asserted is unwarranted. Confer, United States v. Wilkins (CA 2, 1965), 348 F2d 844.
The same reasoning seems pertinent here for the same evil is present. A multi-count charge of various crimes, with evidence adduced of only one, hardly comports with the notion of a fair trial. We can never know with certainty what determines a jury’s verdict.
While we cannot seek to accord a defendant a perfect trial, since “ #. * # our system of law *210has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness” (In re Murchison [1955] 349 US 133, 136 [75 S Ct 623, 99 L Ed 942]), I feel the defendant here should be accorded the benefit of this reasonable doubt.
Five members of the Supreme Court of the United States in Nilva v. United States (1957), 352 US 385 (77 S Ct 431, 1 L Ed 2d 415) sanctioned the procedure here adopted by the Court of Appeals. That case involved a charge of contempt of court, however, and since contempt cases are sui generis, it should not serve to determine the issue in this case.
I would remand for a new trial.