People v. Thompson

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Thompson

186 N.W.2d 4, 30 Mich. App. 142, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2178

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 26, 1971

DocketDocket 7815

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 186 N.W.2d 4 (People v. Thompson) 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. Thompson, 186 N.W.2d 4, 30 Mich. App. 142, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2178 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this appeal defendant attacks his conviction and sentence in the Calhoun County Circuit Court for second-degree murder 1 on the grounds that the trial judge committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury that they could find the defendant not guilty. Defendant also asserts that error was committed when a state policeman was allowed to testify concerning defendant’s sanity.

The trial court instructed the jury that there were four possible verdicts which they could render: guilty of murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, or manslaughter, or not guilty by reason of insanity. The failure to instruct the jury that they could find defendant not guilty constitutes reversible error even though defendant’s attorney did not request such an instruction. People v. Woody (1968), 380 Mich 332, 337; People v. Deneweth (1968), 14 Mich App 604, 606.

At trial, a police officer testified that “to me, he [defendant] appeared sane”. This testimony came after án objection by the defense attorney and after the witness had testified that he had no expertise in psychiatry, had not observed the defendant until at least two hours after the alleged crime, had never met the defendant before, and was with the defendant for three and one-half hours at the most. Such non-expert opinion testimony was clearly prohibited in People v. Cole (1969), 382 Mich 695, 712, in which the court stated: “Where an abuse of the trial court’s discretion as to the admission or exclusion of testimony is palpably manifested in the record, this Court must not and will not hesitate to reverse”.

*144 Onr determination on the aforementioned issues obviates discussion of the other points raised on appeal.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial, at which the charge of first-degree murder shall be eliminated.

1

CL 1948, § 750.317 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549).

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

Per Curiam.

In this appeal defendant attacks his conviction and sentence in the Calhoun County Circuit Court for second-degree murder 1 on the grounds that the trial judge committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury that they could find the defendant not guilty. Defendant also asserts that error was committed when a state policeman was allowed to testify concerning defendant’s sanity.

The trial court instructed the jury that there were four possible verdicts which they could render: guilty of murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, or manslaughter, or not guilty by reason of insanity. The failure to instruct the jury that they could find defendant not guilty constitutes reversible error even though defendant’s attorney did not request such an instruction. People v. Woody (1968), 380 Mich 332, 337; People v. Deneweth (1968), 14 Mich App 604, 606.

At trial, a police officer testified that “to me, he [defendant] appeared sane”. This testimony came after án objection by the defense attorney and after the witness had testified that he had no expertise in psychiatry, had not observed the defendant until at least two hours after the alleged crime, had never met the defendant before, and was with the defendant for three and one-half hours at the most. Such non-expert opinion testimony was clearly prohibited in People v. Cole (1969), 382 Mich 695, 712, in which the court stated: “Where an abuse of the trial court’s discretion as to the admission or exclusion of testimony is palpably manifested in the record, this Court must not and will not hesitate to reverse”.

*144 Onr determination on the aforementioned issues obviates discussion of the other points raised on appeal.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial, at which the charge of first-degree murder shall be eliminated.

1

CL 1948, § 750.317 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 N.W.2d 4, 30 Mich. App. 142, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thompson-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack