Court Opinion

ID: 9592006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:09:38.741499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:13.710132
License: Public Domain

T. G-. Kavanagh, J.
(concurring). I agree with my Brother Swainson that the trial judge’s failure to grant the requested charge of “attempted armed robbery” constituted reversible error. I would remand this case for a new trial.
I cannot agree that the failure of the trial judge to instruct the jury on “attempted assault with intent to rob being- armed”, after having agreed to do so, constituted reversible error. This appears to me to be the injection of a contractual element into the relationship between trial judge and defendant.
GCB 1963, 516.1 states that “the parties shall file written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the request.” There is no such crime in Michigan as attempted assault, which would necessarily involve an attempt to make an attempt. This being so, the instruction here requested cannot be said to be “on the law”. Therefore such instruction did not come within the ambit of the statute,* and the failure of the trial judge to give the instruction, even after stating that he would, was not in violation of his statutory duty.
The anomaly in my Brother’s position is that had the instruction been given, and defendant been convicted thereunder, we would have no choice but to reverse the conviction.
Although defense counsel’s closing argument indicates reliance on the court’s promise to give the instruction he ■ requested, he should not be heard *717to complain that the court somehow escaped the error he invited.
Williams, J., concurred with T. Gr. Kavanagh, J.

 MOLA 768.29; MSA 28.1052.