McCoy rule in Michigan

2005Jenkins v Patel, 471 Mich 158, 162 ; 684 NW2d 346 (2004).

2005Jenkins v Patel, 471 Mich 158, 162 ; 684 NW2d 346 (2004).

2005Indeed, in People v Atkins, 397 Mich 163, 171 ; 243 NW2d 292 (1976), this Court acknowledged the lack of a historical basis for the McCoy rule: “[T]he McCoy rule under discussion was given prospective application for the reason that it went beyond long-established Michigan precedent to the effect that special instructions regarding credibility was [sic] a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Further, the first portion of the McCoy rule, i.e., that reversal is automatically required when the court fails to give an instruction upon request, conflicts with MCL 769.26.

2005Indeed, in People v Atkins, 397 Mich 163, 171 ; 243 NW2d 292 (1976), this Court acknowledged the lack of a historical basis for the McCoy rule: “[T]he McCoy rule under discussion was given prospective application for the reason that it went beyond long-established Michigan precedent to the effect that special instructions regarding credibility was [sic] a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Further, the first portion of the McCoy rule, i.e., that reversal is automatically required when the court fails to give an instruction upon request, conflicts with MCL 769.26.

2003Assuming that evidence exists of an accomplice relationship, as in this case, cf. People v. Gonzalez, 468 Mich. 636 , 643 n. 6, 664 N.W.2d 159 (2003), and that the McCoy issue has been preserved, I see no reason why it would not be appropriate for this Court to address this issue, even if the specific evidence in such a case is not "closely drawn." For, if the "closely drawn" rule has no warrant in the law, then any time that a court applies this rule, and inquires as to whether or not evidence is "closely drawn" (an inquiry so far as I know that exists nowhere else in the law), the applicatio

2003Assuming that evidence exists of an accomplice relationship, as in this case, cf. People v. Gonzalez, 468 Mich. 636 , 643 n. 6, 664 N.W.2d 159 (2003), and that the McCoy issue has been preserved, I see no reason why it would not be appropriate for this Court to address this issue, even if the specific evidence in such a case is not "closely drawn." For, if the "closely drawn" rule has no warrant in the law, then any time that a court applies this rule, and inquires as to whether or not evidence is "closely drawn" (an inquiry so far as I know that exists nowhere else in the law), the applicatio

1996Reed's cross appeal regarding the issue of the failure to sever and other issues is pending resolution on the McCoy issue. [2] II In People v. Hana, Mich. 325, 524 N.W.2d 682 (1994), the Court considered the separate trials issue in the context of potential conflicting and antagonistic testimony and defenses of codefendants at a joint trial.

1996Reed’s cross appeal regarding the issue of the failure to sever and other issues is pending resolution on the McCoy issue. 2 n In People v Hana, 447 Mich 325 ; 524 NW2d 682 (1994), the Court considered the separate trials issue in the context of potential conflicting and antagonistic testimony and defenses of codefendants at a joint trial.

1977We distinguish the instant case from People v Wynn, 386 Mich 627 ; 194 NW2d 354 (1972), because here, as in People v Herbert Van Smith, Jr, 388 Mich 457, 460 ; 203 NW2d 94 (1972), there was an oral request to charge.

1977We distinguish the instant case from People v Wynn, 386 Mich 627 ; 194 NW2d 354 (1972), because here, as in People v Herbert Van Smith, Jr, 388 Mich 457, 460 ; 203 NW2d 94 (1972), there was an oral request to charge.

1977In People v Threlkeld, 47 Mich App 691, 696 ; 209 NW2d 852 (1973), we said: " * * * a person is an 'accomplice’ if he could be charged with the same offense as the accused is charged.” (Emphasis added.) Further, we find that while the defense’s request for the McCoy instruction was oral and not written, it was nevertheless made.

1977In People v Threlkeld, 47 Mich App 691, 696 ; 209 NW2d 852 (1973), we said: " * * * a person is an 'accomplice’ if he could be charged with the same offense as the accused is charged.” (Emphasis added.) Further, we find that while the defense’s request for the McCoy instruction was oral and not written, it was nevertheless made.

1977We distinguish the instant case from People v Wynn, 386 Mich 627 ; 194 NW2d 354 (1972), because here, as in People v Herbert Van Smith, Jr, 388 Mich 457, 460 ; 203 NW2d 94 (1972), there was an oral request to charge.

1977We distinguish the instant case from People v Wynn, 386 Mich 627 ; 194 NW2d 354 (1972), because here, as in People v Herbert Van Smith, Jr, 388 Mich 457, 460 ; 203 NW2d 94 (1972), there was an oral request to charge.

1977Significantly, the trial court’s interpretation of McCoy is virtually identical with the people’s interpretation thereof in People v Eaton, 68 Mich App 740, 742 ; 243 NW2d 723 (1976), and in the appeal now before us.

1977Significantly, the trial court’s interpretation of McCoy is virtually identical with the people’s interpretation thereof in People v Eaton, 68 Mich App 740, 742 ; 243 NW2d 723 (1976), and in the appeal now before us.