Boyle, J.
We granted leave in this case to con-
sider whether MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1) requires a mandatory nonparolable life sentence for persons convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and whether conspiracy to commit second-degree murder is a lesser included offense [324]*324of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder for which instruction should have been given in this case. We hold that a mandatory life sentence is required on conviction of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and that on the facts of this case no evidence existed to support a finding of conspiracy to commit second-degree murder. We remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of whether a person sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder under MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1) is eligible for parole consideration under MCL 791.234(4); MSA 28.2304(4).
i
FACTS
The facts leading up to this appeal are ably set out in the opinion below, People v Fernandez, 143 Mich App 388, 390-392; 372 NW2d 567 (1985):
Defendant and complainant, Janet Fernandez, were married in 1970. They had one daughter, Brandy, who was born in 1978. Though the marriage went without undue difficulty during the first few years, the relationship ran into trouble in 1981. In December of that year, Janet Fernandez told defendant . . . that she wanted a divorce. [The relationship became very tense and, in a telephone conversation on January 17, 1982, the defendant] threatened to kill her or throw acid in her face. On another occasion, defendant twisted his wife’s arms and told her that there wasn’t going to be a divorce. She moved to her mother’s house and filed for divorce on January 29, 1982. Between January 22 and April, 1982, she had little contact with defendant.
In May, 1982, complainant wife met with defendant to discuss their daughter, Brandy. Defendant told his wife that he did not know what he might [325]*325do if he ever caught complainant with anyone else. On June 24, 198[2], still maintaining that there just could not be a divorce, defendant asked her if she still worked in the morning and then told her that he could either kill her and go to jail, or he could have it done, and all the problems would be solved.
The next morning, June 25, 1982, complainant was driving her stepfather’s car to work when she heard a noise like a brick or a rock hitting the passenger side of the car. She looked back and saw a man wearing a military camouflage jacket standing on the street, near an alley, holding a handgun. Complainant went to work and called 911, the police emergency number. On July 27, 1982, complainant left her mother’s house in the morning to go to work. As she came down the steps, she noticed that one of the tires on her car was flat. When she looked up, two men wearing military jackets came running toward her. She screamed, and one of the men stabbed her with a knife. As a result of that incident, complainant had surgery and spent six days in the hospital. Subsequently, she identified Henry Reyna, Jr., as the man who had stabbed her.
Reyna was arrested on September 13, 1982, and another suspect, Migual "Pete” Figueroa, was apprehended on September 14. Migual Figueroa pled guilty to assault with intent to murder and testified for the prosecution in the within case. He testified that, after the failure of the June, 1982, attempt on complainant’s life, he agreed with defendant to find a hit man to kill complainant wife, Janet Fernandez. Pursuant to that plan, he contacted Henry Reyna, who eventually agreed to do the job.
Reyna also pled guilty to assault with intent to murder and testified for the prosecution. He stated that he knew defendant and Figueroa, and that Figueroa had approached him and told him that he knew a guy that wanted somebody dead and that that person was willing to pay two grand for it. Reyna testified that Figueroa was supposed to [326]*326receive $500 to serve as the go-between. Reyna contacted a man he knew, Omar, and offered him $500 to help with the job. Reyna testified that on July 27, 1982, Omar snatched complainant’s purse and he (Reyna) stabbed her with a knife.
Defendant testified in his own behalf and maintained that he had never agreed with anyone, or solicited, incited or induced anyone, to kill his wife. The jury did not buy defendant’s version and, as indicated, found him guilty.
Mr. Fernandez was convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1) and MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548, and aiding and abetting an assault with intent to commit murder, MCL 750.83; MSA 28.278. The trial judge sentenced him to mandatory life imprisonment for the conspiracy conviction and 120 to 240 months for the assault conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but remanded for resentencing, finding that a life sentence, while within the sentencing discretion of the trial court, was. not mandatory.
ii
MANDATORY NONPAROLABLE LIFE
The Court of Appeals defined the critical issue as follows: "[WJhere no murder has been committed, is it mandatory that a defendant convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree, receive a nonparolable life sentence?” Fernandez, supra, p 397. The Court answered the question in the negative and remanded for resentencing. The panel’s reasoning was based upon an intricate analysis of the conspiracy statute, MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1), the first-degree murder statute, MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548, the indeterminate sentence statute, MCL 769.8; MSA 28.1080, and the parole statute, MCL 791.233; MSA 28.2303.
[327]*327We believe that the issue posed by the Court of Appeals is actually two issues, each of which requires separate treatment. The first issue is whether the conspiracy statute, MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1), requires a life sentence for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. We hold that it does. The second issue is whether a person sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder under MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1) is eligible for parole under the "lifer law,” MCL 791.234(4); MSA 28.2304(4). We remand that issue to the Court of Appeals for consideration.
A. DOES CONVICTION OP CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FIRST-DEGREE MURDER REQUIRE A LIFE SENTENCE?
The conspiracy statute, MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1), defines both the crime and the punishment:
Any person who conspires together with 1 or more persons to commit an offense prohibited by law, or to commit a legal act in an illegal manner is guilty of the crime of conspiracy punishable as provided herein:
(a) except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) if commission of the offense prohibited by law is punishable by imprisonment for 1 year or more, the person convicted under this section shall be punished by a penalty equal to that which could be imposed if he had been convicted of committing the crime he conspired to commit and in the discretion of the court an additional penalty of a fine of $10,000.00 may be imposed. [Emphasis added.]
The Legislature had a variety of different punishment schemes from which it could choose. The comments to the Model Penal Code describe the [328]*328types of conspiracy penalty provisions in existence in the early 1960’s:
There were four predominant types of provisions, only the last two enjoying significant support in the revised codes and proposals. A number of states provided that conspiracy was a misdemeanor regardless of its object. Others fixed the maximum sentence for a conspiracy at a constant level regardless of the conspiratorial objective. Still others set different ranges or maxima for conspiracies to commit different classes of substantive crimes. A few made the maximum for conspiracy the same as the maximum provided for the offense that is the objective. [Model Penal Code, § 5.05, commentary at 488-489 (1985 official draft).]
The language of the statute makes it clear that a person convicted of conspiracy "shall be punished by a penalty equal to that which could be imposed” upon conviction of the target offense— the crime that was the subject of the conspiracy. The legislative history of § 157a, enacted as 1966 PA 296, further illustrates the stringent penalty intended by the Legislature for a conspiracy conviction.
House Bill 3571, the bill which ultimately became 1966 PA 296, was originally adopted by the House with a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison and a discretionary $10,000 fine for conspiracies to commit target offenses punishable by life sentences or any term of years up to and including life. Conspiracy convictions for target offenses punishable by five to twenty years were to be punished the same as the target offense plus a discretionary $10,000 fine.1 The Senate amended the relevant language to that ultimately adopted:_
[329]*329[I]f commission of the offense prohibited by law is punishable by imprisonment for 1 year or more, the person convicted under this section shall be punished by a penalty equal to that which could be imposed if he had been convicted of committing the crime he conspired to commit and in the discretion of the court an additional penalty of a fine of $10,000.00 may be imposed. [1966 Journal of the Senate 1429; 1966 Journal of the House 3185.]
Thus, both the plain meaning of the language of § 157a and the legislative history of the provision support the conclusion that a person convicted of conspiracy should receive the same penalty as someone convicted of the target offense.
A person convicted of first-degree murder under MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548 is punishable only by life imprisonment:
Murder which is perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or other wilful, deliberate, and [330]*330premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration, or attempt to perpetrate arson, criminal sexual conduct in the first or third degree, robbery, breaking and entering of a dwelling, larceny of any kind, extortion, or kidnapping, is murder of the first-degree, and shall be punished by imprisonment for life. [Emphasis added.]
The inescapable conclusion, given the plain meaning of §§ 157a and 316, is that a person convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment. We so hold.
B. DOES A LIFE SENTENCE IMPOSED UNDER MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1) QUALIFY FOR PAROLE CONSIDERATION UNDER MCL 791.234(4); MSA 28.2304(4)?
While the possibility of parole was an underlying concern in the Court of Appeals and in the briefs submitted to this Court, the Court below and the parties’ briefs assumed that once a life sentence was imposed by the conjunction of §§ 157a and 316, there was no possibility of parole. At oral argument, the idea first arose that such a life sentence could qualify under MCL 791.234(4); MSA 28.2304(4), the "lifer law,” for parole consideration after ten years.2
MCL 791.234(4); MSA 28.2304(4) provides:
A prisoner under sentence for life or for a term of years, other than prisoners sentenced for life for murder in the ñrst degree and prisoners sentenced for life or for a minimum term of imprisonment for a major controlled substance offense, who has served 10 calendar years of the sentence is subject to the jurisdiction of the parole board and may be [331]*331released on parole by the parole board, subject to the following conditions . . . .[3] [Emphasis added.]
While MCL 791.234(4); MSA 28.2304(4) specifically excludes those sentenced for murder in the first-degree from the provisions of the "lifer law,”4 there is no such exclusion for those sentenced to life for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder under MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1). Thus, as the prosecutor observed at oral argument, there is no apparent reason in the "lifer law” itself that would preclude the possibility of parole in Mr. Fernandez’ case._
[332]*332In 1978, however, MCL 791.233(3); MSA 28.2303(3) was amended by 1978 PA 81 to incorporate changes in the sentencing and parole policies of this state required by Proposal B. Proposal B reflected the public’s desire to prohibit parole in certain cases until the minimum sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, unreduced for good time, special good time, or special parole, was actually served.5 The effect of Proposal B upon those serving life sentences was, until 1984, interpreted to invalidate the "lifer law” because the minimum sentence of a life sentence is life. The reasoning was that under Proposal B, there is no opportunity for parole because life is the minimum, as well as the maximum, sentence. See OAG, 1979-1980, No 5583, p 438 (October 16, 1979).
In December 1984, however, this Court held that Proposal B had no application to fixed or life sentences:
We hold that Proposal B applies only to indeterminate sentences. Its express provisions are binding on the parole board, and the board may not release on parole, before the expiration of the [333]*333minimum term fixed by the sentencing judge, any person given an indeterminate sentence for the crimes specified after the proposal’s effective date. It has no application to a fixed or life sentence. [People v Johnson, 421 Mich 494, 498; 364 NW2d 654 (1984).]
Thus, there is no apparent restriction arising from Proposal B on application of the "lifer law” to a life sentence imposed for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
The current practice of the Parole Board is that persons sentenced to life for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder are, like those convicted of first-degree murder, barred from parole. Because this issue was not briefed by the parties and there has been no opportunity for amici curiae like the Parole Board to file briefs, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals for briefing and decision on this issue. We also direct briefing on the proper retroactive effect of a decision that MCL 791.234(4); MSA 28.2304(4) allows parole consideration after ten years have been served of a life sentence imposed for conviction of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder under MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1). The ramifications of a decision on this issue are broad enough to require the full attention of the parties and various potential amici curiae.
in
ALLEGED CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
Defendant alleges that a mandatory life sentence under MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1) violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and Michigan Constitutions. He also argues that a mandatory life sentence constitutes cruel and unu[334]*334sual punishment under both constitutions. We hold that a mandatory life sentence, even assuming arguendo that it is nonparolable, imposed for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, nor does it violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the Michigan or United States Constitutions.
A. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
In analyzing Mr. Fernandez’ constitutional challenge to the validity of the punishment contained in MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1), we must first acknowledge the deference due the legislative branch in matters such as determining the appropriate punishments for particular crimes. As the California Supreme Court has observed,
[A] court should not lightly encroach on matters which are uniquely in the domain of the Legislature. Perhaps foremost among these are the definition of crime and the determination of punishment. While these intrinsically legislative functions are circumscribed by the constitutional [prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment], the validity of enactments will not be questioned "unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively and unmistakably appears.” [People v Wingo, 14 Cal 3d 169, 174; 121 Cal Rptr 97; 534 P2d 1001 (1975). Citations omitted.]
The United States Supreme Court recently set out the following factors for evaluating whether a sentence is unconstitutionally excessive and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment:6_
[335]*335In sum, a court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including (i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. [Solem v Helm, 463 US 277, 292; 103 S Ct 3001; 77 L Ed 2d 637 (1983).]
In People v Lorentzen, 387 Mich 167, 181; 194 NW2d 827 (1972), this Court used a similar analysis in determining that a mandatory twenty-year sentence for the sale of marijuana was so excessive that it shocked the conscience of the Court and constituted cruel or unusual punishment.7 This Court considered the gravity of the offense and the sentences imposed for other statutory offenses, id., pp 171-178, the sentences imposed by other states for the same offense, id., pp 178-179, and the penological purpose of the challenged punishment, id., pp 179-181.
Applying these tests to the sentence in question, we find that a mandatory life sentence, even if nonparolable, imposed for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder is not so excessive as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See, generally, Note, Length of sentence as violation of constitutional provisions prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, 33 ALR3d 335, §§ 7-8; Anno: Validity of statutes prohibiting or restricting pa[336]*336role, probation, or suspension of sentence in cases of violent crimes, 100 ALR3d 431, §§ 2-5.
Conspiracy to commit first-degree murder is an extremely serious offense, perhaps exceeded only by first-degree murder itself. In People v Hall, 396 Mich 650; 242 NW2d 377 (1976), this Court found that a mandatory nonparolable life sentence was proportionate to the crime of felony murder. Conspiracy can be as dangerous as a completed offense because it may give rise to a cooperation among criminals that is a special hazard:
The heart [of the concept of conspiracy] lies in the fact — or at least the assumption — that collective action toward an antisocial end involves a greater risk to society than individual action toward the same end. [Comment, Developments in the law: Criminal conspiracy, 72 Harv LR 920, 923-924 (1959).]
The United States Supreme Court noted the special dangers of conspiracy in Callanan v United States, 364 US 587, 593-594; 81 S Ct 321; 5 L Ed 2d 312 (1961):
Concerted action both increases the likelihood that the criminal object will be successfully attained and decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality. Group association for criminal purposes often, if not normally, makes possible the attainment of ends more complex than those which one criminal could accomplish. Nor is the danger of a conspiratorial group limited to the particular end toward which it has embarked. Combination in crime makes more likely the commission of crimes unrelated to the original purpose for which the group was formed. In sum, the danger which a conspiracy generates is not confined to the substantive offense which is the immediate aim of the enterprise. [Citations omitted.]
[337]*337In enacting MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1), the Legislature decided that conspiracy to commit a given offense was as serious as the actual commission, or that the conspiracy was sufficiently serious to merit the same punishment. We cannot agree with defendant that the mere failure of his coconspirators to successfully kill defendant’s wife makes the gravity of the offense significantly less than the severity of the phnishment.
A comparison of the other crimes in Michigan which carry a mandatory life sentence does not change our conclusion. One example is MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(i); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(i), which requires a mandatory life sentence for a person convicted of the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to deliver or manufacture 650 grams or more of a controlled substance. MCL 333.7401(3); MSA 14.15(7401X3) provides that such life imprisonment is nonparolable. MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548 requires a mandatory life sentence for those convicted of homicides occurring during specified felonies, as well as for wilful and premeditated murder. MCL 750.544; MSA 28.812 imposes a mandatory life sentence for treason, and MCL 750.207; MSA 28.404 imposes a mandatory, nonparolable life sentence for placing explosives with intent to destroy which causes injury to the person. We cannot say that a conspiracy to commit first-degree murder such as occurred in this case is so much less culpable than these offenses as to constitutionally invalidate a mandatory life sentence. The various statutory offenses imposing mandatory life sentences include potentially nonviolent crimes (i.e., treason), crimes resulting in an injury less than death (placing explosives with intent to destroy), as well as crimes lacking a specific intent to kill.
The third factor in the Solem and Lorentzen [338]*338analyses, the sentences imposed by other jurisdictions for the same offense, does not require a finding of disproportionality. Four other states, South Dakota,8 Wyoming,9 Arizona,10 and Idaho,11 impose a mandatory life sentence for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. In South Dakota12 and Wyoming,13 the life sentence is nonparolable. When Michigan is included with the other four, ten percent of the states impose a mandatory life sentence for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. While most of the states impose a less harsh sentence, a substantial number impose the same sentence as that carried by the substantive target offense.
The final factor considered by us in Lorentzen, the penological policy of a given sentence, also does not require a finding of excessive punishment in this case. In Lorentzen, supra, p 180, we listed some of the modern policies behind criminal penalties:
[Rehabilitation of the individual offender, society’s need to deter similar proscribed behavior in others, and the need to prevent the individual offender from causing further injury to society.
In People v Snow, 386 Mich 586, 592; 194 NW2d 314 (1972), we noted the same considerations, plus the additional factor of punishing the wrongdoer:
In Williams v New York, 337 US 241; 69 S Ct 1079; 93 L Ed 1337 (1949), certain basic considerations were found to be proper in determining an [339]*339appropriate sentence: (a) the reformation of the offender, (b) protection of society, (c) the disciplining of the wrongdoer, and (d) the deterrence of others from committing like offenses.
The rehabilitative function of sentences, with an eye towards returning the offender to society at a future time, is not present in nonparolable life sentences. However, this does not mean that a mandatory life sentence, even if nonparolable, must fail. Other policies, such as deterrence of others, deterrence of the offender, or punishment of the offender, may suffice to deflect a cruel and unusual punishment challenge. In the instant case, the fact that a conspiracy conviction requires the same punishment as the substantive target offense carries the message to potential wrongdoers that conspiratorial agreements involve substantial risks and dangers. This is a rational deterrence effort. Where a crime involves advance planning, such as premeditated murder and conspiracy, the possibility of deterring the potential wrongdoer from engaging in the illicit activity by a stringent penalty is more realistic than in crimes committed on impulse. Furthermore, a life sentence certainly protects society at large from an offender during the time of imprisonment. Finally, the retributive punishment factor is a valid consideration in cases such as this, where the potential harm to society is great.
Thus, we find that the punishment of life imprisonment, even if nonparolable, is not cruel and unusual punishment under the federal or Michigan Constitutions. The punishment, while strong, is not disproportionate to the crime when viewed in light of the gravity of the offense, sentences for other crimes in Michigan, sentences for the same crime in other states, and policies behind punishment.
[340]*340B. EQUAL PROTECTION
Defendant also urges that the punishment of life imprisonment denies him equal protection under the Michigan14 and federal15 constitutions because he is penalized the same for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder as he would be for murder itself, although the behavior was, in his view, less culpable. We disagree. We cannot say that the legislative choice to impose the same punishment for conspiracy as is required for the target offense is irrational. As discussed above, the legislative decision is supported by deterrence and punitive objectives. Therefore, we hold that a mandatory life sentence, even if nonparolable, does not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal or Michigan Constitutions.
IV
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SECOND-DEGREE MURDER
Mr. Fernandez also argues that conspiracy to commit second-degree murder is a lesser offense that is necessarily included in conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and therefore that the trial judge, upon defendant's request, was required to instruct the jury on conspiracy to commit second-degree murder as well as conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. We hold that there was no need to give an instruction on conspiracy to commit second-degree murder because such a crime, even if hypothetically possible, was not supported by the facts in this case.16_
[341]*341The Court of Appeals below held that a conspiracy to commit second-degree murder is logically impossible, since the plan of the conspiracy supplies the premeditation and deliberation needed to make a murder one of first degree. Therefore, no instruction concerning a nonexistent crime was possible. Fernandez, supra, p 396.
While a few other jurisdictions have allowed convictions for conspiracy to commit second-degree murder to stand,17 only the California courts have expressly discussed whether such a crime can logically exist. In People v Horn, 12 Cal 3d 290; 115 Cal Rptr 516; 524 P2d 1300 (1974), the California Supreme Court held that evidence of diminished capacity could negate the specific intent required for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, reducing the crime to conspiracy to commit second-degree murder or manslaughter, in the appropriate case. Id., pp 298-300. See, generally, Anno: Modem status of the rules as to voluntary intoxication as defense to criminal charge, 8 ALR3d 1236. In People v Croy, 41 Cal 3d 1, 22; 221 Cal Rptr 592; 710 P2d 392 (1985), the court upheld the following instructions which describe the effect of diminished capacity upon degrees of homicidal conspiracy:_
[342]*342"In connection with the offense of Conspiracy to Commit Murder, you must determine whether there was a conspiracy, and if so, whether the conspiracy was to commit first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.
"Hence, if the defendants, due to diminished capacity caused by intoxication, did not have the capacity to form the mental state necessary to premeditate murder, they cannot be found guilty of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, but may be found guilty of conspiracy to commit second degree murder.
"If the defendants, due to diminished capacity caused by intoxication, did not have the capacity to form the mental state necessary to harbor malice aforethought, they cannot be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, but may be guilty of conspiracy to commit voluntary manslaughter.
"Finally, if the defendants, due to diminished capacity caused by intoxication, did not have the capacity to form the mental state necessary to harbor malice aforethought and intention to kill, they cannot be guilty of conspiracy to commit voluntary manslaughter, but may be guilty of conspiracy to commit involuntary manslaughter.”
While the California rule of the effect of diminished capacity on degrees of homicides varies significantly from the Michigan rule, see People v Langworthy, 416 Mich 630; 331 NW2d 171 (1982) (voluntary intoxication only negates specific intent, not general intent), the possibility exists under Michigan law that diminished capacity might possibly militate for the existence of the charge of conspiracy to commit second-degree murder. We do not rule on this question because no allegations of diminished capacity were made in this case. Indeed, Mr. Fernandez steadfastly denied any complicity in the conspiracy to murder his wife.
On the facts of this case, there was no basis for [343]*343a jury to find a conspiracy to commit second-degree, rather than first-degree, murder. No allegations of diminished capacity were made, and the conspiracy involved a target offense of "[m]urder which is perpetrated by means of . . . lying in wait . . .,” defined in MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548 as first-degree murder. As the California Supreme Court said in Horn, supra, p 300:
Thus if defendants here conspired to commit murder, . . . that murder was a first-degree murder. On this record a verdict of conspiracy to commit second-degree murder would be contrary to law.
Therefore, the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury in the instant case on conspiracy to commit second-degree murder was not error.
v
CONCLUSION
We hold that a mandatory life sentence is required under MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1) on conviction of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. We remand the case to the Court of Appeals for briefing and decision on whether a person sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder is eligible for parole consideration under MCL 791.234(4); MSA 28.2304(4) and, if so, the proper retroactive effect of such a decision. Finally, we hold that the trial court did not err in this case in refusing to instruct the jury on conspiracy to commit second-degree murder.
Williams, C.J., and Brickley and Riley, JJ., concurred with Boyle, J.