Court Opinion

ID: 9698800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:00:15.986079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:04.770348
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C.J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). I concur, except for the holding that the second-degree murder and armed robbery verdicts are reversibly inconsistent. I believe the jury, as the sole judge of the facts, can consistently find second-degree murder and armed robbery. The testimony showed that defendant, armed with a pistol, came into a bedroom where a two-year-old child was sleeping, ordered the occupants and guests, who were present in the room, to lie on the floor, and demanded money from one of the guests. When the guest refused, defendant fired a shot. At that point, the child’s father gave defendant all his money. After defendant left, the child was found shot. He later died.
Judge Riley’s opinion states, "It is clear from the instant record that the murder took place during the time that defendant asked for and received money, * * From this factual determi*549nation, Judge Riley’s opinion concludes that the verdicts are inconsistent. The lesser included offense analysis of the Michigan Supreme Court in People v Chamblis, 395 Mich 408, 420-421; 236 NW2d 473 (1975), demonstrates that this jury has the right to find the facts differently:
"The jury is the sole judge of all of the facts presented. It may choose to believe or disbelieve any or all of the evidence. That is the essence of the right to a jury trial. To speak of a requirement that the jury 'justify’ its conclusion that the defendant is not guilty of the higher charge before 'allowing’ it to convict of the lesser is antithetical to the nature of a jury trial.
"Because the jury is the sole judge of all the facts, it can choose, without any apparent logical basis, what to believe and what to disbelieve. What may appeal to the judge as 'undisputed’ need not be believed by a jury.
"Certainly no one would deny the jury’s absolute right to disbelieve all the 'undisputed evidence’ and acquit the defendant altogether. A 'jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts’. Horning v District of Columbia, 254 US 135, 138; 41 S Ct 53; 65 L Ed 185 (1920).
" 'It is the policy of the law to allow juries a latitude which is not hemmed in by absolute logic. Many considerations enter into a jury’s verdict which cannot be itemized and weighted in a chart of legal instructions. A jury is expected to stay within the bounds of reason, yet they may indulge tender mercies even to the point of acquitting the plainly guilty. Similarly they may, on almost any excuse, convict of a lower degree of crime although conviction of a higher degree is clearly warranted.’ People v Clemente, 285 App Div 258, 264; 136 NYS2d 202, 207 (1954).”
I would hold that these principles allow the jury *550to reject felony murder and find the lesser included offense of second-degree murder and the separate offense of armed robbery. It is not for an appellate court to look to the facts and decide that the jury had to find felony murder or could not find an armed robbery. As the Supreme Court said in People v Phillips, 385 Mich 30, 37; 187 NW2d 211 (1971), "Even though the evidence for the people, if believed, shows the defendant to be guilty of the offense charged, this does not preclude a conviction of a lesser offense”.
In summary» I believe the verdicts are not inconsistent because they can be explained in a rational manner: The jury found that defendant committed second-degree murder and armed robbery, but found that the murder was not "committed in the perpetration” of a robbery. Thus, it was not felony murder. See MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548.
I feel that the jury has a right to convict defendant of a lesser crime even though it would appear, to a reviewing court to be in the teeth of undisputed facts. This jury exercised that right. I would affirm defendant’s conviction for armed robbery.