People v. Clouse
This text of 171 N.W.2d 554 (People v. Clouse) 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.
Opinion
Defendant was convicted by a jury of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 1
On appeal defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the offense of operating a vehicle while one’s ability is visibly impaired 2 is a lesser included offense in driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Absent a request for an instruction, this Court will not consider a claim of error based on the failure to instruct the jury in regard to a lesser, included offense. People v. Mihalko (1943), 306 Mich 356; People v. Bark (1930), 251 Mich 228; People v. Ivy (1968), 11 Mich App 427. In addition, the requesting party must object to the failure to give the instruction before the jury retires to consider the verdict. GCR 1963, 516.2; People v. Mallory (1966), 2 Mich App 359.
The record contains neither a request for an instruction nor an objection by counsel to the failure to give an instruction. Accordingly, any error implicit in the trial court’s omission was not properly preserved for review.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
171 N.W.2d 554, 18 Mich. App. 582, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clouse-michctapp-1969.