People v. Darwin Brown

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Darwin Brown

166 N.W.2d 7, 15 Mich. App. 50, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 784

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 1968

DocketDocket 3,734

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 166 N.W.2d 7 (People v. Darwin Brown) 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

People v. Darwin Brown, 166 N.W.2d 7, 15 Mich. App. 50, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 784 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Following a conviction for first-degree murder, CL 1948, § 750.316 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.548), defendant submitted the present appeal alleging error in the jury- instructions. He claims that the trial judge on' three occasions misstated requisite elements of first-degree murder as premeditation or deliberation, rather than the proper phraseology of premeditation and deliberation. Defendant is correct; the two-elements were incorrectly disjuncted with “or” rather than correctly conjuncted with “and” in three instances within the jury instructions. However, we affirm the conviction for two reasons:

(1) Although adequate opportunity was provided, defendant did not object to the jury instructions as given. Consequently, defendant waived any error committed absent a showing of substantial injustice. GCR 1963, 516.2; CL 1948, § 768.29 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1052); People v. Dexter (1967), 6 Mich App 247; People v. Cassiday (1966), 4 Mich App 215.

(2) The three tongue slips occurred within an expansive set of jury instructions which included a reading of the information that correctly stated the elements of first-degree murdér in compliance with state statutes and case law. CL 1948, § 767.45 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.985); CL 1948, § 767.71 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1011); People v. Quicksall (1948), 322 Mich 351; People v. Roberts (1920), 211 Mich 187. The jury instructions included correct statements of the two elements, and when read as a whole their *52 emphasis gives the impression that both elements are necessary. People v. Serra (1942), 301 Mich 124. Therefore, the instructions did not impress the proceedings with substantial injustice.

Affirmed.

McG-regor, P. J., and Fitzgerald and Cynar, JJ., concurred.

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

Per Curiam.

Following a conviction for first-degree murder, CL 1948, § 750.316 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.548), defendant submitted the present appeal alleging error in the jury- instructions. He claims that the trial judge on' three occasions misstated requisite elements of first-degree murder as premeditation or deliberation, rather than the proper phraseology of premeditation and deliberation. Defendant is correct; the two-elements were incorrectly disjuncted with “or” rather than correctly conjuncted with “and” in three instances within the jury instructions. However, we affirm the conviction for two reasons:

(1) Although adequate opportunity was provided, defendant did not object to the jury instructions as given. Consequently, defendant waived any error committed absent a showing of substantial injustice. GCR 1963, 516.2; CL 1948, § 768.29 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1052); People v. Dexter (1967), 6 Mich App 247; People v. Cassiday (1966), 4 Mich App 215.

(2) The three tongue slips occurred within an expansive set of jury instructions which included a reading of the information that correctly stated the elements of first-degree murdér in compliance with state statutes and case law. CL 1948, § 767.45 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.985); CL 1948, § 767.71 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1011); People v. Quicksall (1948), 322 Mich 351; People v. Roberts (1920), 211 Mich 187. The jury instructions included correct statements of the two elements, and when read as a whole their *52 emphasis gives the impression that both elements are necessary. People v. Serra (1942), 301 Mich 124. Therefore, the instructions did not impress the proceedings with substantial injustice.

Affirmed.

McG-regor, P. J., and Fitzgerald and Cynar, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 N.W.2d 7, 15 Mich. App. 50, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-darwin-brown-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack