P People of Michigan v. Jumaane Amunra Jones

Michigan Court of Appeals

P People of Michigan v. Jumaane Amunra Jones

DecidedApril 11, 2024

Docket360171

StatusUnpublished

This text of P People of Michigan v. Jumaane Amunra Jones (P People of Michigan v. Jumaane Amunra Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

P People of Michigan v. Jumaane Amunra Jones, (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED April 11, 2024 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 360171 Saginaw Circuit Court JUMAANE AMUNRA JONES, LC No. 20-046833-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LETICA, P.J., and CAVANAGH and SWARTZLE, JJ.

CAVANAGH, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur with the majority in the result, but would hold that defense counsel’s failure to timely request an instruction on the definition of “reasonable force” likely fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. However, defendant has failed to establish that it is reasonably likely that counsel’s error affected the outcome of the case because the instructions that were given fairly presented the issues to the jury. See People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51; 826 NW2d 136 (2012); People v Montague, 338 Mich App 29, 38; 979 NW2d 406 (2021).

Further, I would hold that a specific unanimity instruction should have been given. See People v Cooks, 446 Mich 503, 512, 524; 521 NW2d 275 (1994) (a specific unanimity instruction is warranted if “more than one act is presented as evidence of the actus reus of a single criminal offense” and any of the acts are materially distinct). However, plain error warranting reversal has not been demonstrated. See People v Gonzalez, 468 Mich 636, 643; 664 NW2d 159 (2003).

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh

-1-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED April 11, 2024 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 360171 Saginaw Circuit Court JUMAANE AMUNRA JONES, LC No. 20-046833-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LETICA, P.J., and CAVANAGH and SWARTZLE, JJ.

CAVANAGH, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur with the majority in the result, but would hold that defense counsel’s failure to timely request an instruction on the definition of “reasonable force” likely fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. However, defendant has failed to establish that it is reasonably likely that counsel’s error affected the outcome of the case because the instructions that were given fairly presented the issues to the jury. See People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51; 826 NW2d 136 (2012); People v Montague, 338 Mich App 29, 38; 979 NW2d 406 (2021).

Further, I would hold that a specific unanimity instruction should have been given. See People v Cooks, 446 Mich 503, 512, 524; 521 NW2d 275 (1994) (a specific unanimity instruction is warranted if “more than one act is presented as evidence of the actus reus of a single criminal offense” and any of the acts are materially distinct). However, plain error warranting reversal has not been demonstrated. See People v Gonzalez, 468 Mich 636, 643; 664 NW2d 159 (2003).

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh

-1-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

P People of Michigan v. Jumaane Amunra Jones, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/p-people-of-michigan-v-jumaane-amunra-jones-michctapp-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack