Court Opinion

ID: 9708943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:36:04.918875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:44.938325
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, J.
(concurring). While I would concur with all other positions of the majority opinion, I must clarify my position with respect to the trial court’s jury instructions on the element *162of malice in felony murder. A portion of the disputed instruction provides as follows:
"The People must also prove that the defendants, or either of them, knowingly and intentionally performed the act — that is shooting a gun — which caused the death of Ruby Grant. That is that the defendants or either of them knowingly created a high risk of death to the deceased knowing that his act was reckless and wrongful and that it would probably cause death. For murder of the first degree, the People must prove the elements of murder of the second degree, which I have just defined for you. And in addition, the People must prove that at the time of the act which caused the death of Ruby Tolliver Grant, that the defendants or either of them were committing or attempting to commit robbery armed. And that one defendant was attempting to commit or committing robbery armed and the other was helping him to commit the robbery armed.”
While I follow the rule in People v Fountain, 71 Mich App 491; 248 NW2d 589 (1976), which states that the malice for first-degree murder cannot be imputed from defendant’s intent to commit the underlying felony, I would find the instructions in the instant case were sufficient to satisfy the requirement in Fountain.