Court Opinion

ID: 9503180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:37:09.200373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:18.799102
License: Public Domain

CAVANAGH, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the result reached by the majority opinion. I agree with the majority opinion that defen*49dant’s due process rights were not violated. Because defendant was charged with committing first-degree home invasion on the basis of committing a larceny offense, defendant was on notice that he needed to defend each element of a larceny crime. I do not, however, join the majority opinion in full because I continue to believe that the majority’s interpretation of the word “inferior” in MCL 768.32 is contrary to the established definition and historical use of the term. See People v Mendoza, 468 Mich 527, 548-555; 664 NW2d 685 (2003) (CAVANAGH, J., concurring), and People v Nyx, 479 Mich 112, 142-143; 734 NW2d 548 (2007) (CAVANAGH, J., concurring in result only).
KELLY, C.J., concurred with CAVANAGH, J.