Court Opinion

ID: 9721585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:02:44.540387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:27.438015
License: Public Domain

T. Gr. Kavanagh, J.
(dissenting). The pertinent part of the transcript of the colloquy among the court and the attorneys is:
“The Court: Anything more?
“Mr. Jones [attorney for defendant]: I am sure that the second count has included offenses.
“The Court: Felonious assault has an included offense, Mr. Jones, and the included offense in felonious assault is aggravated assault or assault and battery.
“Mr. Jones: I will go along with that, but I am saying there is included offenses for B and E.
“The Court: No,
*648“Mr. Jones: Like breaking without intent to steal or entering without permission.
“The Court: No; not under these facts. Too much evidence indicates that the door was broken into.
“Mr. Jones: But not enough evidence to show intent to commit a felony therein, to-wit, felonious assault.
“The Court: There is plenty of evidence of that. “Mr. Jones: All right.
TP TP
“The Court: That’s right. I think defense counsel are not requesting included charges. They are saying that there was nothing here, no robbery.
“How can you have included offenses on a record like this? I wouldn’t grant it for the prosecutor. They don’t request it. Anything further?”
What are the trial judge’s responsibilities with respect to jury instructions?
In People v Allie, 216 Mich 133 (1921), Justice Bird, writing for five members of the Court said (p 136):
“We think it clear under the terms of the statute that the defendant was entitled to have an instruction that he could be found guilty of an attempt to commit the crime of robbery or of assault and battery. The question then arises whether it was reversible error for the trial court to neglect to give this instruction upon his own initiative.”
He then went on to hold that the general rule is that questions will not be reviewed unless raised in the court below and that the court will not reverse verdicts for failure to charge specifically on some question where it was not requested.
In dissent, Justice Clark writing for himself and Justices Moore and Fellows asked a most pertinent question (p 139):
*649“If an instruction respecting the included offenses as provided hy the statute quoted hy Mr. Justice Bird may be omitted and excused on the ground of the failure of counsel to prefer a request upon the subject, why may not a failure to instruct upon any subject be likewise excused, or indeed, a failure to charge the jury at all?”
The rationale of the cases cited hy Justice Bird in support of his holding—People v Brott, 163 Mich 150 (1910); People v Farrell, 146 Mich 291 (1906); People v Page, 198 Mich 524 (1917); People v Luce, 210 Mich 621 (1920) (quoting 16 CJ p 980); People v Maczulski, 194 Mich 193 (1916), is the reasonable position that a judge cannot he charged with error if the asserted error was never called to his attention. The court will not and should not let a litigant “lie in the bushes” or take “two bites of the apple”. This is the sense of the rule and a defensible rule of appellate review under most circumstances.
That this is not universally applied of course is evident from even some of the cases cited hy Justice Bird. In People v Brott, supra, for example the Court noted that as a matter of grace, when the Court is satisfied that the record shows that a manifest injustice has been done, it will overlook noncompliance of counsel with the rules of practice. That we still follow this practice is too well known to need citation of authority.
But there is no need to invoke the rule in this case, however, for no fair reading of this record will support the conclusion that the need to instruct on lesser included offenses was not called to the trial judge’s attention. The court’s response in the colloquy quoted above shows it was brought to his attention. The error was not induced by the defendant’s inaction, hut rather the court’s intrusion into the field of the jury and his determination that “Too *650much evidence indicates that the door was broken into” and his conclusion that “There is plenty of evidence * * * (of intent)”.
This circumstance is one of those specifically intended by MOLA 768.30; MSA 28.1053 and G-CE 1963, 507.5, which provide essentially that formal exceptions to a court’s charge or refusal to charge are not necessary.
The whole thrust of these provisions is to eliminate the formality formerly required. The colloquy here shows clearly that defense counsel made known what action he desired. The fact that he did not formalize his objection or take exception to the court’s ruling, or renew his request subsequently is of no import. As we said in People v Shirk, 383 Mich 180, 193 (1970):
“To require defense counsel to mouth a collocation of words which could be formally labelled as an objection * * * would exalt form over substance.”
My Brother says that if the “attempted” or “inchoate” request was made it was abandoned because the defense counsel said “all right” after the judge’s ruling and said he was satisfied after the charge was given.
Whatever the validity of that conclusion it does not solve the problem here.
The trial judge has the responsibility for correctly instructing the jury on the law. The rule of no appellate review of non-preserved error will not serve to absolve the trial judge from misinstructing the jury as my Brother notes in his apt quotation from People v Murray, 72 Mich 10, 16 (1888). The trouble here is that when the court improperly ruled on the defendant’s “inchoate” request, and consistently instructed the jury:
*651“Now, members of tbe jury, there are certain verdicts which you are permitted to return here and I will state those verdicts to you ***.”* *
“That means that you can return a verdict of guilty of Count One, not guilty of Count Two; not guilty of Count One and guilty of Count Two; guilty of both counts or not guilty of either count. That would be six possible verdicts as to each defendant.”
He actually misinstructed the jury, because the jury would on this record have been free to bring in a verdict of “guilty of entering a building without breaking with intent to commit larceny”1 2or “guilty of entering a building without permission”.2
Even if the defense attorneys had formally acquiesced in the court’s erroneous ruling and had endorsed the instruction given, the jury so limited was misinstructed. This is reversible error.
Whenever the evidence in a case would warrant a verdict of guilty on a lesser included offense we should require a judge to instruct the jury to that effect whether so requested or not. Both the people and the defendant are entitled to it.3
Here where the judge was so requested and refused, it makes a mockery of our system to say we will not insist upon it.
1 would reverse for a new trial.
T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Swainson, J., concurred with T. G. Kavanagh, J.

MCLA 750.111; MSA 28.306.

 MOLA 750.115; MSA 28.310.

 This is consonant with the observation by Justice Butzel in his dissent in People v Netzel, 295 Mich 353, 356, 357 (1940), wherein the purpose of the statute was discussed.