Court Opinion

ID: 9696492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:49:16.686019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:22.813708
License: Public Domain

D. C. Riley, J.
(dissenting). I concur in the majority’s resolution of the first three issues. However, I would hold that the trial court’s instructions on aiding and abetting were so erroneous as to require reversal.
The trial court instructed the jury that they could find defendant guilty of delivery of heroin if they found that he had personally delivered heroin to the codefendant. The court then instructed the jury that they could convict defendant of aiding and abetting delivery of heroin if:
"* * * you believe from the evidence, it shows you beyond a reasonable doubt, that [defendant] delivered the heroin to [the sheriff’s agent] and defendant was an active participant then he would be guilty of this offense.”
As the majority has noted, defendant’s failure to object to this instruction does not preclude appellate review as it would be manifestly unjust to allow the jury to convict a defendant of an offense without the jury having been properly instructed on the elements of that offense. United States v *582Bryant, 461 F2d 912, 920 (CA 6, 1972); People v Williams, 118 Mich App 266; 324 NW2d 599 (1982).
The rule in Michigan is that:
"A defendant has a right to have a properly instructed jury pass on the evidence and that the instructions must include all of the elements of the crime charged.”
People v Rappuhn, 78 Mich App 348, 353; 260 NW2d 90 (1977), lv den 402 Mich 880 (1978).
In People v Burgess, 67 Mich App 214, 220; 240 NW2d 485 (1976), the Court held that to convict a defendant as an aider and abettor:
"[T]he jury had to find (1) the principal’s guilt of the charged offense, (2) that the defendant supported or encouraged the principal in the commission of the charged offense, and, (3) that the defendant himself entertained the requisite intent of the charged offense.”
In People v Tolbert, 77 Mich App 162, 167; 258 NW2d 176 (1977), the Court addressed the element of intent in aiding and abetting prosecutions and held that:
"To prove guilt * * * as an aider and abettor, it must be shown that the defendant either shared the criminal intent of the principal or aided and abetted knowing the principal had the requisite criminal intent.”
In the case at bar, the court failed to instruct the jury that they must find defendant possessed such an intent, and, therefore, the defendant’s conviction should be reversed. Furthermore, the court failed to instruct the jury that they had to *583find codefendant guilty of the charged offense before they could convict defendant of aiding and abetting in that offense.
Because it cannot be discerned from the record whether the jury’s verdict was based upon a finding that defendant had personally delivered heroin or whether they found him liable as an aider and abettor, I would remand this matter for a new trial.