Court Opinion

ID: 9694153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:26:15.246284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:56.853936
License: Public Domain

*762D. C. Riley, P. J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
When the jury returned to deliver its verdict, the following discussion took place:
"CLERK: 'How do you find the defendant as to Count I?’
"FOREMAN: 'As to Count I, we find the defendant guilty as charged.’
"THE COURT: 'Of [w]hat?’
"FOREMAN: 'First-degree murder.’ ”
The majority focuses on the language "guilty as charged”, and concludes that there is no doubt that the jury found defendant guilty of felony murder. I do not find the cited language so unambiguous as to render the trial judge’s clear instructional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are three possible meanings of the foreman’s phrase "guilty as charged”. He could have meant (1) guilty of felony murder, as charged in the information (the majority’s conclusion); (2) guilty as per the trial court’s charge to the jury (either felony murder or premeditated murder); or (3) guilty of first-degree murder as opposed to guilty of the lesser included offense of second-degree murder (again either felony or premeditated murder). The confusion was not cleared up by the court’s further inquiry, since the foreman merely stated that they had found defendant guilty of first-degree murder.
Given these three possibilities, I cannot say with any degree of certainty that the court’s erroneous instruction on premeditated murder did not result in defendant being convicted of a crime different from that charged in the information. It is no more reasonable to conclude that the jury foreman *763used the term "charged” in a strict legal sense, to refer to the information, than to conclude that the term was a reference to the court’s instructions.
The fact that the jury also convicted defendant of armed robbery does not, in itself, prove that the murder conviction was for felony-murder. There was evidence presented at the trial that the killing took place after the completion of the robbery, which could support verdicts of both armed robbery and premeditated murder. See People v Oliver, 63 Mich App 509, 524-525; 234 NW2d 679 (1975).
I would reverse and remand.