Court Opinion

ID: 9667931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:57:58.034417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:41.605382
License: Public Domain

V. J. Brennan, J.
(dissenting). I must respectfully dissent from my brother Cavanagh’s opinion.
I agree that a defendant cannot be sentenced for a crime of which the jury did not clearly find him guilty, but I find no lack of clarity in this jury’s verdict.
I can find no Michigan authority, and I am cited to none, which states rules of construction for jury verdicts. Other jurisdictions have held, however, that errors in the form and statement of findings of a jury will not be grounds for reversal where the error is one merely of form, where it consists of inaccurate use of terms the meaning of which clearly appears from the context, where there is mere incompleteness in the conclusions of law if omissions can be readily supplied and corrected, or where there is a lack of clarity and expression if the meaning is clearly discernible. See 5B CJS, Appeal and Error, § 1788, pp 55-57, and cases cited therein.
The majority relies on People v McNary, 43 Mich App 134; 203 NW2d 919 (1972), and People v Smith, 383 Mich 576; 177 NW2d 164 (1970). I find neither of these cases apposite to the case at bar. In the Smith case there was total confusion regarding the verdict which the jury intended to render. The Michigan Supreme Court found that *661the only verdict which could be clearly deduced from the record was the final statement of the jury foreman wherein he stated that the jury found the defendant guilty of "assault with intent”. I agree with our highest court that under those circumstances the verdict of the jury could not be construed to convict the defendant of more than simple assault. Likewise, in the case of People v McNary, supra, there was confusion regarding the verdict the jury intended to render. The clerk asked for clarification and the trial judge clarified the jury’s verdict by stating that they had decided that there was an assault without intent. That case is not totally without difficulty, but that Court held that the trial judge had clarified the verdict, and that the jurors had assented to the judge’s clarification, both as a group and when they were polled.
The case at bar is easily distinguished. Here there was no apparent misunderstanding. Neither the court clerk nor the judge asked for a clarification. There was no confusion. Nevertheless, the majority would hold that the jury found the defendant guilty of "assault” but would treat the remainder of the verdict, "to commit robbery while armed” merely as surplusage. This is unreasonable and exalts form over substance. Jurors are not trained in the law, and therefore will often fail to state their verdict with technical legal precision. In my view the jury’s intent is quite clear. They intended to convict the defendant of assault with intent to commit robbery while armed.
In People v Smith, supra, at 578; 177 NW2d at 166, our Supreme Court observed:
"The people contend, however, that the modern rule of jury verdict construction is that a verdict should be reasonably construed in such a manner as to give it the *662meaning intended by the jury, and should be set aside only for uncertainty when its meaning cannot be reasonably determined.”
Without either agreeing or disagreeing with this position, the Supreme Court went on to say that it could clearly deduce only one verdict from the record of the jury’s statement. At minimum, our highest Court clearly did not expressly disavow such a rule of construction, and at the very least, assumed such a rule for the purposes of argument in that case. If the Court had wanted to require technical precision in the form of jury verdicts, the Smith case presented it with an excellent opportunity to so hold. As the people contend, I would hold that a verdict should be reasonably construed so as to give it the meaning intended by the jury, and should be set aside for uncertainty only when its meaning cannot be reasonably determined.
In the case at bar the trial judge found no ambiguity in the jury’s verdict. Neither do I.
I would affirm.