13 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Jones
green
2 sentences2025“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.” Id. 2023Therefore, to the extent -2- Questions of law presented by claims of instructional error are reviewed de novo on appeal, but “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.” People v Jones, 497 Mich 155, 161 ; 860 NW2d 112 (2014). | 6 | 2017–2025 |
People v. Lemons
green
2 sentences2018The Michigan Supreme Court discussed the applicable law for lesser included and cognate lesser offenses in People v Lemons, 454 Mich 234, 253 ; 562 NW2d 447 (1997), stating: When reviewing the propriety of a requested lesser included offense instruction, we first determine if the lesser offense is necessarily included in the greater charge, or if it is a cognate lesser included offense. 2018The Michigan Supreme Court discussed the applicable law for lesser included and cognate lesser offenses in People v Lemons, 454 Mich 234, 253 ; 562 NW2d 447 (1997), stating: When reviewing the propriety of a requested lesser included offense instruction, we first determine if the lesser offense is necessarily included in the greater charge, or if it is a cognate lesser included offense. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2018Necessarily included 2 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). -2- lesser offenses must be such that it is impossible to commit the greater without first having committed the lesser. . . . 2018Necessarily included 2 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). -2- lesser offenses must be such that it is impossible to commit the greater without first having committed the lesser. . . . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Cornell
green
2 sentences2016People v Cornell, 466 Mich 335, 363 ; 646 NW2d 127 (2002). 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 | 2 | 2014–2016 |
People v. Gillis
green
2 sentences2014We 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 | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Musser
green
2 sentences2014We 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 | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Stephens
green
2 sentences2002First, a review of the Court of Appeals analysis indicates that it did not specifically analyze the “rational view” of the evidence; instead, it focused on the fifth prong of the test in People v Stephens, 416 Mich 252, 260 ; 330 NW2d 675 (1982), stating that a requested lesser included offense instruction must not result in undue confusion or injustice. 2002First, a review of the Court of Appeals analysis indicates that it did not specifically analyze the “rational view” of the evidence; instead, it focused on the fifth prong of the test in People v Stephens, 416 Mich 252, 260 ; 330 NW2d 675 (1982), stating that a requested lesser included offense instruction must not result in undue confusion or injustice. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v Bailey
green
2 sentences1997In People v Bailey, 451 Mich 657, 667-668 ; 549 NW2d 325 (1996), we observed: When reviewing the propriety of a requested lesser included offense instruction, we first determine if the lesser offense is necessarily included in the greater charge, or if it is a cognate lesser included offense. 1997In People v Bailey, 451 Mich 657, 667-668 ; 549 NW2d 325 (1996), we observed: When reviewing the propriety of a requested lesser included offense instruction, we first determine if the lesser offense is necessarily included in the greater charge, or if it is a cognate lesser included offense. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Ora Jones
red
2 sentences1996Necessarily included lesser offenses “must be such that it is impossible to commit the greater without first having committed the lesser.” People v Ora Jones, 395 Mich 379, 387 ; 236 NW2d 461 (1975). 1996Necessarily included lesser offenses “must be such that it is impossible to commit the greater without first having committed the lesser.” People v Ora Jones, 395 Mich 379, 387 ; 236 NW2d 461 (1975). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.