gave instruction in Michigan

2018In People v Ridge, 319 Mich App 393 ; 901 NW2d 406 (2017), this Court discussed this Court’s previous decision in People v Janes, 302 Mich App 34 ; 836 NW2d 883 (2013), 1 This Court has held that in order to establish a violation of MCL 287.323(1), the prosecution must prove that the defendant’s gross negligence in handling the animal caused the victim’s death.

2018In People v Ridge, 319 Mich App 393 ; 901 NW2d 406 (2017), this Court discussed this Court’s previous decision in People v Janes, 302 Mich App 34 ; 836 NW2d 883 (2013), 1 This Court has held that in order to establish a violation of MCL 287.323(1), the prosecution must prove that the defendant’s gross negligence in handling the animal caused the victim’s death.

2018The Ninth Circuit applies four factors in determining whether manifest necessity existed: whether [the trial court] has (1) heard the opinions of the parties about the propriety of the mistrial, (2) considered the alternatives to a mistrial and chosen the course of action least harmful to a defendant’s rights, (3) acted deliberately instead of abruptly, and (4) properly determined that the defendant would benefit from the declaration of mistrial. [United States v Bates, 917 F2d 388, 396 (CA 9, 1990).] The Sixth Circuit has observed, “[T]he trial court’s failure seriously to consider alternativ

2018The Ninth Circuit applies four factors in determining whether manifest necessity existed: whether [the trial court] has (1) heard the opinions of the parties about the propriety of the mistrial, (2) considered the alternatives to a mistrial and chosen the course of action least harmful to a defendant’s rights, (3) acted deliberately instead of abruptly, and (4) properly determined that the defendant would benefit from the declaration of mistrial. [United States v Bates, 917 F2d 388, 396 (CA 9, 1990).] The Sixth Circuit has observed, “[T]he trial court’s failure seriously to consider alternativ

2017Id. at 682 .

2017Id. at 682 .

2025Although this Court is “not strictly required to follow uncontradicted opinions from this Court decided before November 1, 1990, . . . they are nevertheless considered to be precedent and entitled to significantly greater deference than are unpublished cases.” Woodring v Phoenix Ins Co, 325 Mich App 108, 114-115 ; 923 NW2d 607 (2018). 2 CJI 20:1:01 was the precursor to M Crim JI 20.25. -4- In this case, the trial court gave an instruction that accurately encompassed MCL 750.520h, and the instruction was particularly applicable since defense counsel during closing remarks explicitly highlighted

2025Although this Court is “not strictly required to follow uncontradicted opinions from this Court decided before November 1, 1990, . . . they are nevertheless considered to be precedent and entitled to significantly greater deference than are unpublished cases.” Woodring v Phoenix Ins Co, 325 Mich App 108, 114-115 ; 923 NW2d 607 (2018). 2 CJI 20:1:01 was the precursor to M Crim JI 20.25. -4- In this case, the trial court gave an instruction that accurately encompassed MCL 750.520h, and the instruction was particularly applicable since defense counsel during closing remarks explicitly highlighted

2010When defense counsel failed to locate any legal authority invalidating the instruction, the prosecutor suggested that the trial court provide an instruction on the momentary innocent possession defense to carrying a concealed weapon then under consideration by this Court in People v. Hernandez-Garcia, 477 Mich. 1039 , 728 N.W.2d 406 (2007). [6] Defense counsel objected.

2010When defense counsel failed to locate any legal authority invalidating the instruction, the prosecutor suggested that the trial court provide an instruction on the momentary innocent possession defense to carrying a concealed weapon then under consideration by this Court in People v Hernandez-Garcia, 477 Mich 1039 (2007). 6 Defense counsel objected.

1994See, e.g., People v Chapman, 165 Mich App 215 ; 418 NW2d 658 (1987); People v Conrad, 148 Mich App 433 ; 385 NW2d 277 (1986).

1994See, e.g., People v Chapman, 165 Mich App 215 ; 418 NW2d 658 (1987); People v Conrad, 148 Mich App 433 ; 385 NW2d 277 (1986).

1989Since the instruction is accurate, there is no need to supplement it to make it more favorable toward defendants. [Young, supra, pp 338-339 .] Here, where the evidence supported the giving of paragraph (5), the trial court gave an instruction which was unfairly biased in favor of the prosecution and failed to adequately inform the jury of the appropriate factors to consider in evaluating the victim’s identification of the defendant by giving CJI 7:7:01 without the benefit of paragraph (5). ii The testimony of defendant’s sister, Vickie Long, and her boyfriend, John Baird, corroborated defendan

1986A. Yes. 3 The trial court gave the standard instruction on expert opinion testimony (CJI 5:2:11). 4 Defendant was also convicted of two counts of armed robbery. 5 Other considerations pertinent to admissibility include those expressed in MRE 403, 703, and 705. 6 In People v Fenner, 136 Mich App 45 ; 356 NW2d 1 (1984), lv den 420 Mich 852 (1984), the doctor testified that the complainant had informed him that her uncle was the perpetrator and concluded that the complainant’s physical condition was consistent with her story. 7 E.g., People v LaPorte, 103 Mich App 444 ; 303 NW2d 222 (1981), the c

1986A. Yes. 3 The trial court gave the standard instruction on expert opinion testimony (CJI 5:2:11). 4 Defendant was also convicted of two counts of armed robbery. 5 Other considerations pertinent to admissibility include those expressed in MRE 403, 703, and 705. 6 In People v Fenner, 136 Mich App 45 ; 356 NW2d 1 (1984), lv den 420 Mich 852 (1984), the doctor testified that the complainant had informed him that her uncle was the perpetrator and concluded that the complainant’s physical condition was consistent with her story. 7 E.g., People v LaPorte, 103 Mich App 444 ; 303 NW2d 222 (1981), the c

1986A. Yes. 3 The trial court gave the standard instruction on expert opinion testimony (CJI 5:2:11). 4 Defendant was also convicted of two counts of armed robbery. 5 Other considerations pertinent to admissibility include those expressed in MRE 403, 703, and 705. 6 In People v Fenner, 136 Mich App 45 ; 356 NW2d 1 (1984), lv den 420 Mich 852 (1984), the doctor testified that the complainant had informed him that her uncle was the perpetrator and concluded that the complainant’s physical condition was consistent with her story. 7 E.g., People v LaPorte, 103 Mich App 444 ; 303 NW2d 222 (1981), the c

1986A. Yes. 3 The trial court gave the standard instruction on expert opinion testimony (CJI 5:2:11). 4 Defendant was also convicted of two counts of armed robbery. 5 Other considerations pertinent to admissibility include those expressed in MRE 403, 703, and 705. 6 In People v Fenner, 136 Mich App 45 ; 356 NW2d 1 (1984), lv den 420 Mich 852 (1984), the doctor testified that the complainant had informed him that her uncle was the perpetrator and concluded that the complainant’s physical condition was consistent with her story. 7 E.g., People v LaPorte, 103 Mich App 444 ; 303 NW2d 222 (1981), the c

1984Third, the law the prosecutor relies on for this "invited error” argument involves a case where the defendant requested an erroneous instruction then asked for reversal on appeal because the trial court gave the instruction as defendant requested, *822 People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 516 ; 283 NW2d 785 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 930 (1979), and a case in which defendant requested that the trial court place no value on a presentence report then argued on appeal that the trial court erroneously failed to place any weight upon the report, People v Murry, 106 Mich App 257, 262 ; 307 NW2d 464 (1981).

1984Third, the law the prosecutor relies on for this "invited error” argument involves a case where the defendant requested an erroneous instruction then asked for reversal on appeal because the trial court gave the instruction as defendant requested, *822 People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 516 ; 283 NW2d 785 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 930 (1979), and a case in which defendant requested that the trial court place no value on a presentence report then argued on appeal that the trial court erroneously failed to place any weight upon the report, People v Murry, 106 Mich App 257, 262 ; 307 NW2d 464 (1981).

1984After finding that the instruction was erroneous under People v Richardson, supra, the Supreme Court then said: "Given that the instruction was erroneous, the issue becomes whether this error was harmless.

1984Third, the law the prosecutor relies on for this "invited error” argument involves a case where the defendant requested an erroneous instruction then asked for reversal on appeal because the trial court gave the instruction as defendant requested, *822 People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 516 ; 283 NW2d 785 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 930 (1979), and a case in which defendant requested that the trial court place no value on a presentence report then argued on appeal that the trial court erroneously failed to place any weight upon the report, People v Murry, 106 Mich App 257, 262 ; 307 NW2d 464 (1981).

1984Third, the law the prosecutor relies on for this "invited error” argument involves a case where the defendant requested an erroneous instruction then asked for reversal on appeal because the trial court gave the instruction as defendant requested, *822 People v Bates, 91 Mich App 506, 516 ; 283 NW2d 785 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 930 (1979), and a case in which defendant requested that the trial court place no value on a presentence report then argued on appeal that the trial court erroneously failed to place any weight upon the report, People v Murry, 106 Mich App 257, 262 ; 307 NW2d 464 (1981).

1983We have reviewed the instructions as a whole and conclude that the instructions requested would be redundant to the other instructions and would run afoul of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Fredericks v General Motors Corp, 411 Mich 712 ; 311 NW2d 725 (1981).

1983We have reviewed the instructions as a whole and conclude that the instructions requested would be redundant to the other instructions and would run afoul of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Fredericks v General Motors Corp, 411 Mich 712 ; 311 NW2d 725 (1981).

1982We also note that in the case of People v Morris, 92 Mich App 747 ; 285 NW2d 446 (1979), lv den 408 Mich 919 (1980), this Court reversed defendant’s conviction where the trial court gave an instruction on legal sanity patterned after CJI 7:8:02A.

1982We also note that in the case of People v Morris, 92 Mich App 747 ; 285 NW2d 446 (1979), lv den 408 Mich 919 (1980), this Court reversed defendant’s conviction where the trial court gave an instruction on legal sanity patterned after CJI 7:8:02A.

1977To support his position that the court’s instruction on contributory negligence was inappropriate, plaintiff relies solely on Funk v General Motors Corp, 392 Mich 91 ; 220 NW2d 641 (1974).

1977To support his position that the court’s instruction on contributory negligence was inappropriate, plaintiff relies solely on Funk v General Motors Corp, 392 Mich 91 ; 220 NW2d 641 (1974).

1968In Borsvold v. United Dairies, 347 Mich 672, 681 (82 ALR2d 406), the Court gave the test for a nuisance: ‘To render noise a nuisance, it must be of such a character as to be of actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities.’ In applying this standard, the court states that consideration should be given to such additional factors as the character of the industry complained of, the character, volume, time and duration of the noise, and ‘all the facts and circumstances of the case.’ See, also, for the same general standard, Kobielshi v. Belle Isle East Side Creamery Co., 222 Mic

1968In Borsvold v. United Dairies, 347 Mich 672, 681 (82 ALR2d 406), the Court gave the test for a nuisance: ‘To render noise a nuisance, it must be of such a character as to be of actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities.’ In applying this standard, the court states that consideration should be given to such additional factors as the character of the industry complained of, the character, volume, time and duration of the noise, and ‘all the facts and circumstances of the case.’ See, also, for the same general standard, Kobielshi v. Belle Isle East Side Creamery Co., 222 Mic

1967We find no error at this point. (b) The case of People v. DeBolt (1934), 269 Mich 39 , cited by appellant, states at p 45: “To sustain the charge of an accessory on the part of defendant, the guilt of the other defendants must have been established.” 2 The trial court gave no instruction to the jury relating to finding guilt on the part of Myshock in reaching a verdict as to the charge against appellant.

1926State v. Whitbeck, 145 Iowa, 41 ( 123 N. W. 982 ) ; State v. Worthen, 124 Iowa, 408 ( 100 N. W. 330 ).” The other errors alleged do not call for reversal and are not likely to arise on another trial and, therefore, we do not discuss them.

1926State v. Whitbeck, 145 Iowa, 41 ( 123 N. W. 982 ) ; State v. Worthen, 124 Iowa, 408 ( 100 N. W. 330 ).” The other errors alleged do not call for reversal and are not likely to arise on another trial and, therefore, we do not discuss them.

1926State v. Whitbeck, 145 Iowa, 41 ( 123 N. W. 982 ) ; State v. Worthen, 124 Iowa, 408 ( 100 N. W. 330 ).” The other errors alleged do not call for reversal and are not likely to arise on another trial and, therefore, we do not discuss them.

1926In State v. Cartwright, 188 Iowa, 579 ( 174 N. W. 586 ), an instruction very much like the one complained of here was under consideration, and it was said: “The court gave an instruction upon the defense of alibi; and in so doing made use of the language found in some of our cases cautioning the jury that it is a defense ‘easily manufactured,’ and that the proofs should be ‘scanned with care and caution.’ That this cautionary instruction may properly be given has been affirmed by this court in several cases.