Court Opinion

ID: 9741056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:48:47.830181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:21.996302
License: Public Domain

D. E. Holbrook, Jr., J.
(dissenting). Viewing the totality of the court’s instructions, I am of the opinion that reversible error occurred. With respect to the jury’s consideration of the lesser included offense of possession of marijuana the trial judge instructed the jury, in pertinent part, as follows:
"If you decide that your verdict is not guilty of the offense of possession and delivery of marijuana * * * , you may then consider if the People have proved the included offense of possession of marijuana.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The foregoing is tantamount to instructing the *657jury that they should not consider the included offense unless they first reáched a verdict of not guilty on the principal charge. The word verdict is the key word, for subsequently the court instructed the jury:
"Now I charge you further, members of the jury, that in a criminal case of this nature it is necessary for your verdict to be by unanimous consent. It would be a verdict of all of you, all 12 of you. ” (Emphasis supplied.)
In viewing claimed errors in instructions to the jury, this Court must consider the entire charge. People v Wright, 58 Mich App 735; 228 NW2d 807 (1975), People v Weems, 19 Mich App 553; 172 NW2d 865 (1969).
When the two instructions are considered together the plain and obvious meaning to an average juror would be that before the lesser included offense could be considered it would be necessary for the jury to reach unanimous agreement of defendant’s innocence on the major charge. The court might just as well have instructed the jury to the effect that if all 12 agreed on acquittal they might then consider the lesser included offense. Or in the reverse, that they could not consider the lesser included offense unless they first unanimously agreed that defendant was not guilty of the principal charge.
The instructions given by the trial court in all of the cases cited by the majority, as being supportive of its position, are far different and distinguishable from the instructions given by the court in this case.
Had the court said, ”If you fail to reach a verdict of guilty of the main charge you may then consider the lesser included offense”, I would affirm as does the majority since such a statement *658even taken in conjunction with the instruction defining a verdict would not require unanimity. If one juror failed to vote for acquittal the jury would have failed to reach a verdict. Here, however, the court’s instructions required a verdict which can only be reached by unanimous consent of each juror.
This is not a situation where the court merely provided the jury with a logical sequence of deliberation whereby they might consider possible verdicts; but one in which the court’s instructions required unanimous agreement of defendant’s innocence on a greater charge before consideration of the lesser. Hence, under People v Ray, 43 Mich App 45; 204 NW2d 38 (1972), the court’s instructions were coercive, unduly restrictive and reversibly erroneous.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.