supplemental instruction in Michigan

2007In People v Sullivan, 392 Mich 324, 341-342 ; 220 NW2d 441 (1974), our Supreme Court adopted American Bar Association (ABA) Standard 5.4 for the supplemental instruction that should be read to a deadlocked jury.

2007In People v Sullivan, 392 Mich 324, 341-342 ; 220 NW2d 441 (1974), our Supreme Court adopted American Bar Association (ABA) Standard 5.4 for the supplemental instruction that should be read to a deadlocked jury.

2018People v Bookout, 111 Mich App 399, 403 ; 314 NW2d 637 (1981).

2018People v Bookout, 111 Mich App 399, 403 ; 314 NW2d 637 (1981).

2025That is, “[w]hen the standard jury instructions do not adequately cover an area, the trial court is obligated to give additional instructions when requested, if the supplemental instructions properly inform the jury of the applicable law and are supported by the evidence.” Bouverette v Westinghouse Electric Corp, 245 Mich App 391, 401-402 ; 628 NW2d 86 (2001).

2016A supplemental instruction must be modeled as nearly as possible to the style of the standard jury instructions and must be “concise, understandable, conversational, unslanted, and nonargumentative.” Id. at 402 . -2- A no-fault claim requires an insured to establish that he or she is entitled to benefits for accidental bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle.

2023Beadle v Allis, 165 Mich App 516, 527 ; 418 NW2d 906 (1987).

2023Beadle v Allis, 165 Mich App 516, 527 ; 418 NW2d 906 (1987).

2023But a trial court need not give a supplemental instruction if doing so would not “enhance the ability of the jury to decide the case intelligently, fairly, and impartially.” Central Cartage, 232 Mich App at 528 .

2010But a trial court need not give a supplemental instruction if doing so would not “enhance the ability of the jury to decide the case intelligently, fairly, and impartially.” Central Cartage, 232 Mich App at 528 .

2020However, whether a supplemental instruction is applicable and accurate is within the trial court’s discretion, Silberstein v Pro-Golf of America, Inc, 278 Mich App 446, 451 ; 750 NW2d 615 (2008), and it will be reviewed on appeal for an abuse of that discretion, Chastain v Gen Motors, 254 Mich App 576, 590 ; 657 NW2d 804 (2002).

2020However, whether a supplemental instruction is applicable and accurate is within the trial court’s discretion, Silberstein v Pro-Golf of America, Inc, 278 Mich App 446, 451 ; 750 NW2d 615 (2008), and it will be reviewed on appeal for an abuse of that discretion, Chastain v Gen Motors, 254 Mich App 576, 590 ; 657 NW2d 804 (2002).

2020However, whether a supplemental instruction is applicable and accurate is within the trial court’s discretion, Silberstein v Pro-Golf of America, Inc, 278 Mich App 446, 451 ; 750 NW2d 615 (2008), and it will be reviewed on appeal for an abuse of that discretion, Chastain v Gen Motors, 254 Mich App 576, 590 ; 657 NW2d 804 (2002).

2020However, whether a supplemental instruction is applicable and accurate is within the trial court’s discretion, Silberstein v Pro-Golf of America, Inc, 278 Mich App 446, 451 ; 750 NW2d 615 (2008), and it will be reviewed on appeal for an abuse of that discretion, Chastain v Gen Motors, 254 Mich App 576, 590 ; 657 NW2d 804 (2002).

2017Every criminal defendant has “the right to have the jury, rather than the judge, reach the requisite finding of guilty.” Sullivan v Louisiana, 508 US 275, 277 ; 113 S Ct 2078 ; 124 L Ed 2d 182 (1993) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2017Every criminal defendant has “the right to have the jury, rather than the judge, reach the requisite finding of guilty.” Sullivan v Louisiana, 508 US 275, 277 ; 113 S Ct 2078 ; 124 L Ed 2d 182 (1993) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2016“A defendant is . . . entitled to have all the elements of the crime submitted to the jury in a charge which [is] neither erroneous nor misleading . . . .” People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 501 ; 803 NW2d 200 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration and omission in original).

2016“A defendant is . . . entitled to have all the elements of the crime submitted to the jury in a charge which [is] neither erroneous nor misleading . . . .” People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 501 ; 803 NW2d 200 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration and omission in original).

2014A proposed supplemental instruction must be modeled as nearly as practicable after the style of the standard instructions and “must be concise, understandable, conversational, unslanted and nonargumentative.” MCR 2.512(D)(4); Stoddard v Mfr Nat’l Bank of Grand Rapids, 234 Mich App 140, 162-163 ; 593 NW2d 630 (1999).

2008As indicated above, claims of instructional error are generally reviewed de novo, Cox, supra at 8 , but a trial court’s determination whether a supplemental instruction is applicable and accurate is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, Stoddard, supra at 162 .

1996Houston v Grand Trunk W R Co, 159 Mich App 602, 608 ; 407 NW2d 52 (1987).

1996Houston v Grand Trunk W R Co, 159 Mich App 602, 608 ; 407 NW2d 52 (1987).

1980One case frequently cited in Court of Appeals decisions, Ballinger v State, 437 P2d 305 (Wyo, 1968), involved a supplemental instruction nearly identical to the one given in Ray, supra. A majority of the Wyoming Supreme Court in Ballinger held that the instruction was not reversibly erroneous because the defendant had failed to demonstrate how the instruction injured or prejudiced him.

1974In these *397 circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court’s instruction was not prejudicial and, hence, reversibly erroneous under Ray, supra. Because we find that defendant’s claim of instructional error mandates reversal, we refrain from generating dicta by discussing why his other allegations of error do not.

1980In Payne v State, 199 Wis 615; 227 NW 258 (1929), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin considered a supplemental instruction which directed the jury to treat the charges in the order given by the court and to agree unanimously to any verdict.

1972In State v Payne, 199 Wis 615; 227 NW 258 (1929), the defendant advanced a similar objection to a supplemental instruction by the trial court.

1947It was proper for the department to remand the proceedings to a deputy commissioner to take testimony as to Holtz’ death and the rights of his dependents, if any; that at the supplemental hearing before the deputy commissioner, additional testimony may be taken by either party, each of whom shall have the right of review of any question decided at either or both hearings before the deputy commissioner.' This is in accordance with our opinion on a very similar state of facts in Stone v. Smith, 275 Mich. 344 ..

1936This is in accordance with our opinion on a very similar state of facts in Stone v. Smith, 275 Mich. 344 .

2021People v Chelmicki, 305 Mich App 58, 69 ; 850 NW2d 612 (2014).

2021People v Chelmicki, 305 Mich App 58, 69 ; 850 NW2d 612 (2014).

2020Murdock, 454 Mich at 60 .

2020Also, the pertinent language from the unpublished opinion that the trial court used in the supplemental instruction was derived from our Supreme Court’s opinion in People v Robinson, 475 Mich 1, 9 ; 715 NW2d 44 (2006).

2020Also, the pertinent language from the unpublished opinion that the trial court used in the supplemental instruction was derived from our Supreme Court’s opinion in People v Robinson, 475 Mich 1, 9 ; 715 NW2d 44 (2006).

2019The majority acknowledges that the judge’s direction to the jurors to “continue your deliberations” might have been a permissible supplemental instruction23 but then cites two specific statements by the trial judge that the majority concludes were coercive: (1) stating, “[T]hat’s not the way this works” and (2) twice asking the jurors to “let us know” if one or more jurors were 19 People v Pollick, 448 Mich 376, 385 ; 531 NW2d 159 (1995). 20 Goldsmith, 411 Mich at 560 (quotation marks omitted). 21 Lowenfield, 484 US at 238 . 22 Id. at 240 . 23 Ante at 8; see People v France, 436 Mich 138, 165-

2019The majority acknowledges that the judge’s direction to the jurors to “continue your deliberations” might have been a permissible supplemental instruction23 but then cites two specific statements by the trial judge that the majority concludes were coercive: (1) stating, “[T]hat’s not the way this works” and (2) twice asking the jurors to “let us know” if one or more jurors were 19 People v Pollick, 448 Mich 376, 385 ; 531 NW2d 159 (1995). 20 Goldsmith, 411 Mich at 560 (quotation marks omitted). 21 Lowenfield, 484 US at 238 . 22 Id. at 240 . 23 Ante at 8; see People v France, 436 Mich 138, 165-

2019In re Weingrad Estate, 502 Mich 903 ; 913 NW2d 288 (2018). -2- II.

2019Even assuming that the trial judge, in giving the supplemental instruction, committed a clear or obvious 42 People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 124-125 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001) (explaining that unpreserved claims of instructional error are reviewed for plain error affecting the defendant’s substantial rights, while the instructions themselves are reviewed in their entirety). 43 People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999), citing United States v Olano, 507 US 725, 731 ; 113 S Ct 1770 ; 123 L Ed 2d 508 (1993). 44 Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . 18 error of law that affected defendant’s subs

2019Even assuming that the trial judge, in giving the supplemental instruction, committed a clear or obvious 42 People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 124-125 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001) (explaining that unpreserved claims of instructional error are reviewed for plain error affecting the defendant’s substantial rights, while the instructions themselves are reviewed in their entirety). 43 People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999), citing United States v Olano, 507 US 725, 731 ; 113 S Ct 1770 ; 123 L Ed 2d 508 (1993). 44 Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . 18 error of law that affected defendant’s subs

2019Even assuming that the trial judge, in giving the supplemental instruction, committed a clear or obvious 42 People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 124-125 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001) (explaining that unpreserved claims of instructional error are reviewed for plain error affecting the defendant’s substantial rights, while the instructions themselves are reviewed in their entirety). 43 People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999), citing United States v Olano, 507 US 725, 731 ; 113 S Ct 1770 ; 123 L Ed 2d 508 (1993). 44 Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . 18 error of law that affected defendant’s subs

2019Even assuming that the trial judge, in giving the supplemental instruction, committed a clear or obvious 42 People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 124-125 ; 631 NW2d 67 (2001) (explaining that unpreserved claims of instructional error are reviewed for plain error affecting the defendant’s substantial rights, while the instructions themselves are reviewed in their entirety). 43 People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999), citing United States v Olano, 507 US 725, 731 ; 113 S Ct 1770 ; 123 L Ed 2d 508 (1993). 44 Carines, 460 Mich at 763 . 18 error of law that affected defendant’s subs

2019In their stronger forms, these charges have been referred to as ‘dynamite charges,’ because of their ability to ‘blast’ a verdict out of a deadlocked jury.” [Quoting United States v Mason, 658 F2d 1263, 1265 n 1 (CA 9, 1981).] 5 Huffman v United States, 297 F2d 754, 759 (CA 5, 1962) (Brown, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 6 State v Nelson, 63 NM 428 , 431; 321 P2d 202 (1958). 4 its ability to rapidly generate a verdict from an otherwise deadlocked jury.7 A proper supplemental instruction facilitates continued deliberation while avoiding coercion, but if the supplemental instruc

2019Although witnesses did not actually see defendant shoot Smith after the two men disappeared between the houses, the evidence of defendant chasing after Smith with the gun, the timing of the gunshots, and the 3 Although titled as an “amended” standard 4 brief, the submitted pleading appears to actually be a supplemental standard 4 brief and we will treat it as such. 4 The elements of second-degree murder are “(1) a death, (2) the death was caused by an act of the defendant, (3) the defendant acted with malice, and (4) the defendant did not have lawful justification or excuse for causing the dea

2019Although witnesses did not actually see defendant shoot Smith after the two men disappeared between the houses, the evidence of defendant chasing after Smith with the gun, the timing of the gunshots, and the 3 Although titled as an “amended” standard 4 brief, the submitted pleading appears to actually be a supplemental standard 4 brief and we will treat it as such. 4 The elements of second-degree murder are “(1) a death, (2) the death was caused by an act of the defendant, (3) the defendant acted with malice, and (4) the defendant did not have lawful justification or excuse for causing the dea