Court Opinion

ID: 9675469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:54:57.588322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:34.755863
License: Public Domain

Bronson, J.
(concurring). I concur in Judge Bashara’s thorough and well-written opinion. *297However, I write separately to amplify on one point which I feel needs clarification.
The concluding sentence of the instruction given in the present case, "[wrongful acts, knowingly or intentionally committed can neither be justified or excused on the ground of innocent intent”, was labeled as erroneous by the Michigan Supreme Court in People v Holcomb, 395 Mich 326; 235 NW2d 343 (1975). In Holcomb defendant admitted committing the "criminal” act, i.e., taking the money from the victim by force. He denied, however, that he intended to rob the victim. Instead, he insisted that he was merely recovering money that he thought was rightfully his.1 Since defendant admitted the act, the only contested issue in the case was his intent. By instructing the jury that wrongful acts cannot be justified by an innocent intent the trial court completely vitiated defendant’s sole defense. In effect, the instruction told the jury that'even if it believed defendant’s testimony it must nevertheless convict him because his innocent intent was irrelevant once he admitted committing the act.
The present case, however, differs significantly from Holcomb. Defendants’ intent in taking the coins was not a contested issue. Defendants did not claim that their intent in taking the coins was innocent, but rather that they did not take the coins at all. The sole contested issue in the case was whether defendants actually committed the act. Thus, the instruction did not vitiate nor impair in any manner a defense presented by defendants. It is clear that once the jury concluded that defendants committed the acts, it logically inferred *298that they possessed the requisite intent.2 It is equally clear under the facts of this case that once the jury found that defendants committed the criminal acts, there was no evidence nor logical reason from which any reasonable person could have drawn an inference of innocent intent. Therefore, the instruction, although erroneous, had absolutely no bearing on the case.
Taking the instructions as a whole and reviewing them in relation to the facts of this case, and the nature of the defenses raised, it becomes apparent that the inclusion of the one erroneous sentence in the court’s otherwise proper set of instructions would not have affected the outcome of the case. The error was therefore harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

A person who in good faith believes that he is taking property to which he is rightfully entitled does not have the felonious intent necessary for robbery or larceny. People v Henry, 202 Mich 450, 455; 168 NW 534 (1918).

 A jury may properly infer a defendant’s intent from the circumstances surrounding the activity in question. See People v Phillips, 385 Mich 30, 37; 187 NW2d 211 (1971), LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law, § 28, pp 202-203.