Court Opinion

ID: 9655599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:17:36.120603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:18:40.562351
License: Public Domain

Cynar, J.
(concurring). While concurring in result, I must respectfully disagree that the trial court’s reinstruction on aiding and abetting constituted reversible error. The instruction on aiding and abetting was adequate. The jurors could have found defendant guilty of aiding and abetting depending on the testimony the jury believed.
However, while the trial court’s additional instruction, in answer to the question asked by the jury, is correct insofar as it was stated, it does not fully answer the jury’s question. The court should additionally have instructed by differentiating aiding and abetting from being an accessory after-the-fact and instructed on the applicability or nonapplicability of each under the facts and circumstances found in this case. See People v Bargy, 71 Mich App 609, 614-617; 248 NW2d 636 (1976).