Court Opinion

ID: 9532338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:20:30.990613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:44.668390
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). It would appear that the formidable theses in People v Morrin, 31 Mich App 301; 187 NW2d 434 (1971), lv den 385 Mich 775 (1971), and People v Hoffmeister, 394 Mich 155; 229 NW2d 305 (1975), are still good law,1 and therefore I agree with the majority opinion that a case of first-degree premeditated murder is not made out on this record. While the court has retreated slightly from some of Justice Levin’s views as expressed in Morrin and Hoffmeister in People v Tilley, 405 Mich 38; 273 NW2d 471 (1979), the majority opinion there appears *168grounded on the second look — second thought rationale of People v Vail, 393 Mich 460; 227 NW2d 535 (1975), and cited a Hoffmeister passage with approval:
"We recognize that '[s]ome time span between initial homicidal intent and ultimate action is necessary to establish premeditation and deliberation’, People v Hoffmeister, 394 Mich 155, 161; 229 NW2d 305 (1975). The jury had evidence to support the conclusion that the defendant had ample opportunity to premeditate and deliberate.” 405 Mich 38, 45-46.
We do not have such evidence here. Consequently I believe the majority is correct that there was no sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the count of first-degree premeditated murder.
But in threading my way through the legal thicket of manslaughter cases, most of which are cited by the majority, I arrive at the opinion that the requested manslaughter instruction should have been given because there was sufficient evidence to support such an instruction, both on voluntary manslaughter and on involuntary manslaughter, and for that reason I would reverse. In People v Van Wyck, 402 Mich 266; 262 NW2d 638 (1978), the Supreme Court held that although manslaughter is not a necessarily lesser included offense of murder, a requested manslaughter instruction should be given if there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction of manslaughter. On remand our Court held that while the Van Wyck record did not conclusively establish mitigating circumstances, neither did it clearly establish a lack of passion and that even slight evidence of mitigation was sufficient to frame a jury question. People v Van Wyck (On Remand), 83 Mich App 581; 269 NW2d 233 (1978).
Here we have, it seems to me, sufficient evidence *169of intoxication2 to support a charge of involuntary manslaughter and enough, though slight, evidence of mitigating circumstances to warrant a charge on voluntary manslaughter.3 Since, in my view, both charges were supported and failure to give either one requires reversal, I do not address the question of waiver by the defense attorney’s failure to object to the court’s refusal to give his requested instruction on voluntary manslaughter.
I would reverse.

 The law being what the Supreme Court says it is.

 He drank every day and sometimes lost his memory as a result. He had been drinking all the night of the killing and did not remember leaving the party according to his testimony.

 Again in favorable light, she’d nagged him for months and had been "chasing other guys”.