Court Opinion

ID: 9662186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:02:04.17757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:37.599592
License: Public Domain

Boyle, J.
(dissenting). I agree with Chief Justice Coleman that "substantial reasons in the statutes, in the court rules, in the case law and in common sense” preclude consideration by this Court of issues not preserved in the trial court. People v Ora Jones, 395 Mich 379, 402; 236 NW2d 461 (1975) (Coleman, J., dissenting). Defendant neither requested an instruction on involuntary manslaughter nor objected to the instructions as given, thereby forfeiting any claim of error relating to the failure to so instruct. To permit reversal under these circumstances approves a truly novel trial tactic: (1) seeking outright acquittal, defense counsel can omit any requests to instruct on lesser offenses supportable by the evidence; (2) having failed to obtain a jury acquittal, defendant can then successfully argue on appeal that the failure to present the jury with a fuller range of conviction options was error requiring reversal. The effect is both to superimpose the trial court’s view of the case upon defense counsel’s trial strategy, and to afford an unwarranted advantage to criminal defendants which, by any standard of fairness, is not required by our criminal justice process.
I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate defendant’s conviction.
Ryan and Brickley, JJ., concurred with Boyle, J.