Court Opinion

ID: 9734446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:35:06.596947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:48.667769
License: Public Domain

Ryan, J.
(concurring in result). I agree with my brother’s opinion insofar as it holds that the trial judge did not err in refusing to instruct on attempted armed robbery and attempted unarmed robbery when the undisputed facts established a completed robbery. It has long been the law in this state that refusal to give a lesser included offense instruction supported by the facts constitutes reversible error. People v Hamilton, 76 Mich 212; 42 NW 1131 (1889). The appropriateness of lesser included offense instructions is determined by the evidence. People v Phillips, 385 Mich 30; 187 NW2d 211 (1971). A lesser included offense instruction is required only when there are disputed factual issues which would rationally support acquittal of the greater offense and conviction of the lesser offense. Sansone v United States, 380 US 343, 349-350; 85 S Ct 1004; 13 L Ed 2d 882 (1965).
We applied these well-established principles in People v Rogers, 411 Mich 202; 305 NW2d 857 (1981), when we carefully examined the record and concluded that the evidence would rationally support a conviction of attempted uttering and publishing. A similar examination of the record in this *62case reveals that no rational view of the evidence would support an attempted robbery conviction. The jury was instructed on the defendant’s theory of duress, both initially and in supplemental instructions. The jury chose to reject that defense. The failure to give instructions not supported by the evidence cannot be a basis for reversal..
I would reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the defendant’s convictions.
Coleman, J., concurred with Ryan, J.
Riley, J., took no part in the decision of this case.