Court Opinion

ID: 9667497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:47:23.740005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:14.006635
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, P.J.
(dissenting). Respectfully, I dissent. As was stated by this Court in People v Szymanski, 102 Mich App 745; 302 NW2d 316 (1981), and in People v Ideis, 101 Mich App 179; 300 NW2d 489 (1980), the Supreme Court did not announce a new rule of law in People v Joeseype Johnson, 407 Mich 196; 284 NW2d 718 (1979). Rather, the Court merely clarified existing law.
Trial courts are required to instruct the jury concerning the law applicable to the case, see People v Oberstaedt, 372 Mich 521, 526; 127 NW2d 354 (1964). The judge erred in this case by not instructing the jury that the crime of felonious assault is a specific intent crime. As a consequence, I cannot vote to affirm defendant’s conviction of felonious assault.
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Joeseype Johnson wholly applies to this case. Because the trial judge’s instructions to the jury in this case do not comply with the standards of Joeseype Johnson, defendant’s conviction of felonious assault should be reversed.