claim of instructional error in Michigan

2022“We review a claim of instructional error involving a question of law de novo, but we review the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction applies to the facts of the case for an abuse of discretion.” People v Dupree, 486 Mich 693, 702 ; 788 NW2d 399 (2010).

2022“We review a claim of instructional error involving a question of law de novo, but we review the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction applies to the facts of the case for an abuse of discretion.” People v Dupree, 486 Mich 693, 702 ; 788 NW2d 399 (2010).

2020“We review a claim of instructional error involving a question of law de novo, but we review the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction applies to the facts of the case for an abuse of discretion.” People v Mitchell, 301 Mich App 282, 286 ; 835 NW2d 615 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2020“We review a claim of instructional error involving a question of law de novo, but we review the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction applies to the facts of the case for an abuse of discretion.” People v Mitchell, 301 Mich App 282, 286 ; 835 NW2d 615 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2017The court -1- explained its reasoning for denying to instruct the jury on self-defense as follows: “Well, my position is that, yes, a felon in possession of a firearm can assert self-defense, but I don’t think the evidence in this case sufficiently establishes the elements necessary for it and I’ll deny the motion.” This Court generally reviews de novo a claim of instructional error, but “the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is applicable to the facts of the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 82 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007).

2017The court -1- explained its reasoning for denying to instruct the jury on self-defense as follows: “Well, my position is that, yes, a felon in possession of a firearm can assert self-defense, but I don’t think the evidence in this case sufficiently establishes the elements necessary for it and I’ll deny the motion.” This Court generally reviews de novo a claim of instructional error, but “the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is applicable to the facts of the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 82 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007).

2025MCR 2.512(C); People v Gonzalez, 256 Mich App 212, 225 ; 663 NW2d 499 (2003).

2025MCR 2.512(C); People v Gonzalez, 256 Mich App 212, 225 ; 663 NW2d 499 (2003).

2022When the trial court errs in instructing the jury, “[t]he defendant’s conviction will not be reversed unless, after examining the nature of the error in light of the weight and strength of the untainted evidence, it affirmatively appears that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” People v Riddle, 467 Mich 116, 124-125 ; 649 NW2d 30 (2002).

2022When the trial court errs in instructing the jury, “[t]he defendant’s conviction will not be reversed unless, after examining the nature of the error in light of the weight and strength of the untainted evidence, it affirmatively appears that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” People v Riddle, 467 Mich 116, 124-125 ; 649 NW2d 30 (2002).

2020“An abuse of discretion occurs when the court chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 217 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008).

2020“An abuse of discretion occurs when the court chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 217 ; 749 NW2d 272 (2008).

2020Even when instructional error occurs, “[r]eversal is warranted only if after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). -11- “[A] requested instruction on a necessarily included lesser offense is proper if the charged greater offense requires the jury to find a disputed factual element that is not part of the lesser included offense and a rational view of the evidence would support it.” People v Cornell, 466 Mich 335, 357 ; 646 NW2d 127 (2002) (emphasi

2014We review de novo a claim of instructional error involving a question of law.12 However, a circuit court’s decision as to whether a requested lesser-included- offense instruction is applicable under the facts of a particular case will only be reversed upon a finding of an abuse of discretion.13 An abuse of discretion occurs when the circuit court chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of principled outcomes.14 Before addressing any alleged instructional error by the circuit court, however, we first consider whether a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the offense of moving

2026“When reviewing a claim of instructional error, this Court views the instructions as a whole to determine whether the issues to be tried were adequately presented to the jury.” Armstrong, 305 Mich App at 239 .

2023“When reviewing a claim of instructional error, this Court views the instructions as a whole to determine whether the issues to be tried were adequately presented to the jury.” People v Armstrong, 305 Mich App 230, 239 ; 851 NW2d 856 (2014).

2025People v Craft, 325 Mich App 598, 605 ; 927 NW2d 708 (2018); People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 657 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000).

2022“We review a claim of instructional error involving a question of law de novo, but we review the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction applies to the facts of the case for an abuse of discretion.” People v Craft, 325 Mich App 598, 604 ; 927 NW2d 708 (2018), quoting People v Everett, 318 Mich App 511 , 528; 899 NW2d 94 (2017) (quotation marks omitted).

2018People v Fennell, 260 Mich App 261, 264 ; 677 NW2d 66 (2004).

2018People v Fennell, 260 Mich App 261, 264 ; 677 NW2d 66 (2004).

2017People v Hartuniewicz, 294 Mich App 237, 242 ; 816 NW2d 442 (2011).

2017People v Hartuniewicz, 294 Mich App 237, 242 ; 816 NW2d 442 (2011).

2017“We review de novo a claim of instructional error involving a question of law.” People v Jones, 497 Mich 155, 161 ; 860 NW2d 112 (2014).

2017“We review de novo a claim of instructional error involving a question of law.” People v Jones, 497 Mich 155, 161 ; 860 NW2d 112 (2014).

2026Even when “somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error if they fairly presented the issues for trial and sufficiently -5- protected the defendant’s rights.” People v Kosik, 303 Mich App 146, 155 ; 841 NW2d 906 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026Even when “somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error if they fairly presented the issues for trial and sufficiently -5- protected the defendant’s rights.” People v Kosik, 303 Mich App 146, 155 ; 841 NW2d 906 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025People v Craft, 325 Mich App 598, 605 ; 927 NW2d 708 (2018); People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 657 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000).

2025People v Craft, 325 Mich App 598, 605 ; 927 NW2d 708 (2018); People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 657 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000).

2024As with Kowalski, the claim of instructional error here did not amount to structural error—it is a nonstructural error and is clearly subject to a waiver analysis. [Traver, 502 Mich at 41 n 7.] -6- Here, too, the jury received instructions regarding the elements of the charged offenses in “some form or another,” negating Perrigo’s claim of structural error.

2024Id.

2018When examining a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, “[t]his Court [usually] reviews for clear error a trial court’s factual findings, while we review de novo constitutional determinations.” People v Johnson, 293 Mich App 79, 90 ; 808 NW2d 815 (2011).

2018When examining a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, “[t]his Court [usually] reviews for clear error a trial court’s factual findings, while we review de novo constitutional determinations.” People v Johnson, 293 Mich App 79, 90 ; 808 NW2d 815 (2011).

2018Cox v Board of Hosp Managers for City of Flint, 467 Mich 1, 8 ; 651 NW2d 356 (2002).

2018Cox v Board of Hosp Managers for City of Flint, 467 Mich 1, 8 ; 651 NW2d 356 (2002).

2018“A criminal defendant has the right to have a properly instructed jury consider the evidence against him.” People v Rodriguez, 463 Mich 466, 472 ; 620 NW2d 13 (2000) (citation omitted). “[A] requested instruction on a necessarily included lesser offense is proper if the charged greater offense requires the jury to find a disputed factual element that is not part of the lesser included offense and a rational view of the evidence would support it.” People v Cornell, 466 Mich 335, 357 ; 646 NW2d 127 (2002).

2018“A criminal defendant has the right to have a properly instructed jury consider the evidence against him.” People v Rodriguez, 463 Mich 466, 472 ; 620 NW2d 13 (2000) (citation omitted). “[A] requested instruction on a necessarily included lesser offense is proper if the charged greater offense requires the jury to find a disputed factual element that is not part of the lesser included offense and a rational view of the evidence would support it.” People v Cornell, 466 Mich 335, 357 ; 646 NW2d 127 (2002).

2017Defendant therefore waived any issue with the jury selection process, People v Clark, 243 Mich App 424, 426 ; 622 NW2d 344 (2000), and there is no error for this Court to review.

2017Defendant therefore waived any issue with the jury selection process, People v Clark, 243 Mich App 424, 426 ; 622 NW2d 344 (2000), and there is no error for this Court to review.

2017People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 124 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001).

2017People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 124 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001).

2017“The trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of principled outcomes or when it erroneously interprets or applies the law.” People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38, 51 ; 862 NW2d 446 (2014).

2017“The trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of principled outcomes or when it erroneously interprets or applies the law.” People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38, 51 ; 862 NW2d 446 (2014).

2014We review de novo a claim of instructional error involving a question of law.12 However, a circuit court’s decision as to whether a requested lesser-included- offense instruction is applicable under the facts of a particular case will only be reversed upon a finding of an abuse of discretion.13 An abuse of discretion occurs when the circuit court chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of principled outcomes.14 Before addressing any alleged instructional error by the circuit court, however, we first consider whether a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the offense of moving

2014We review de novo a claim of instructional error involving a question of law.12 However, a circuit court’s decision as to whether a requested lesser-included- offense instruction is applicable under the facts of a particular case will only be reversed upon a finding of an abuse of discretion.13 An abuse of discretion occurs when the circuit court chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of principled outcomes.14 Before addressing any alleged instructional error by the circuit court, however, we first consider whether a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the offense of moving

2003People v Hubbard (After Remand), 217 Mich App 459, 487 ; 552 NW2d 493 (1996).

2003People v Hubbard (After Remand), 217 Mich App 459, 487 ; 552 NW2d 493 (1996).

2025Landin v Healthsource Saginaw, Inc, 305 Mich App 519, 545 ; 854 NW2d 152 (2014).

2025Landin v Healthsource Saginaw, Inc, 305 Mich App 519, 545 ; 854 NW2d 152 (2014).

2025With regard to ineffective assistance, “this Court’s review is limited to mistakes apparent from the record,” Heft, 299 Mich App at 80 , because defendant did not move in the trial court for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing or move in this Court to remand for a Ginther hearing.

2025Therefore, the Court held “the claim of instructional error here did not amount to structural error—it is a nonstructural error and is clearly subject to a waiver analysis.” Id.