47 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Pouncey, 437 Mich at 391 (declining “to issue a rule that insulting words per se are never adequate provocation” given that “adequate provocation is a factual question,” but finding the provocation in that case inadequate because, among other things, there was “no physical contact of any kind”); Mitchell, 301 Mich App at 287 - 288, 288 n 2 (noting that “the implication [from Pouncey] is that a physical altercation could constitute adequate provocation” in holding that a voluntary manslaughter instruction was warranted where the victim swore at the defendant and hit him with a baseba 2018Whether the provocation was reasonable is a question of fact; but if no reasonable jury could find that the provocation was adequate, the court may exclude evidence of the provocation. [People v Mitchell, 301 Mich App 282, 286-287 ; 835 NW2d 615 (2013) (citations, quotation marks and brackets omitted).] Based on the evidence presented at trial, the trial court properly declined to provide a voluntary manslaughter instruction because of the absence of “the degree of provocation required to mitigate a killing from murder to manslaughter.” Id. | 2 | 10 |
People v. Mendozagreen2 sentences2023See People v Pouncey, 7 (concluding that a voluntary manslaughter instruction was not supported when the defendant “went into the house, a safe harbor” and was not “compelled to go back outside by anyone” before killing the victim); People v Mendoza, 8 (explaining that a voluntary manslaughter instruction is unsupported when “a reasonable time has elapsed for the [defendant’s] blood to cool and reason to resume its habitual control”) 7 People v Pouncey, 437 Mich 382, 392 ; 471 NW2d 346 (1991). 8 People v Mendoza, 468 Mich 527, 535 ; 664 NW2d 685 (2003). 3 (quotation marks and citation omitted) 2023See People v Pouncey, 7 (concluding that a voluntary manslaughter instruction was not supported when the defendant “went into the house, a safe harbor” and was not “compelled to go back outside by anyone” before killing the victim); People v Mendoza, 8 (explaining that a voluntary manslaughter instruction is unsupported when “a reasonable time has elapsed for the [defendant’s] blood to cool and reason to resume its habitual control”) 7 People v Pouncey, 437 Mich 382, 392 ; 471 NW2d 346 (1991). 8 People v Mendoza, 468 Mich 527, 535 ; 664 NW2d 685 (2003). 3 (quotation marks and citation omitted) | 2 | 7 |
People v. Pounceygreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Pouncey, 437 Mich at 391 (declining “to issue a rule that insulting words per se are never adequate provocation” given that “adequate provocation is a factual question,” but finding the provocation in that case inadequate because, among other things, there was “no physical contact of any kind”); Mitchell, 301 Mich App at 287 - 288, 288 n 2 (noting that “the implication [from Pouncey] is that a physical altercation could constitute adequate provocation” in holding that a voluntary manslaughter instruction was warranted where the victim swore at the defendant and hit him with a baseba 2024See, e.g., Pouncey, 437 Mich at 391 (declining “to issue a rule that insulting words per se are never adequate provocation” given that “adequate provocation is a factual question,” but finding the provocation in that case inadequate because, among other things, there was “no physical contact of any kind”); Mitchell, 301 Mich App at 287 - 288, 288 n 2 (noting that “the implication [from Pouncey] is that a physical altercation could constitute adequate provocation” in holding that a voluntary manslaughter instruction was warranted where the victim swore at the defendant and hit him with a baseba | 2 | 5 |
People v. Kurrgreen2 sentences2018See People v Kurr, 253 Mich App 317, 327-328 ; 654 NW2d 651 (2002). 1 Although we have concluded that the trial court did not err by refusing to give an involuntary manslaughter instruction, we note briefly that the failure to give such an instruction was not outcome determinative. 2018See People v Kurr, 253 Mich App 317, 327-328 ; 654 NW2d 651 (2002). 1 Although we have concluded that the trial court did not err by refusing to give an involuntary manslaughter instruction, we note briefly that the failure to give such an instruction was not outcome determinative. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Etheridgegreen2 sentences2017See Etheridge, 196 Mich App at 55 . 2017See Etheridge, 196 Mich App at 55 . | 2 | 2 |
People v. Dunigangreen2 sentences2018“Failing to request a particular jury instruction can be a matter of trial strategy.” People v Dunigan, 299 Mich App 579, 584 ; 831 NW2d 243 (2013). 2018“Failing to request a particular jury instruction can be a matter of trial strategy.” People v Dunigan, 299 Mich App 579, 584 ; 831 NW2d 243 (2013). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Ginthergreen2 sentences2023That is where she’s made contact with the other witness, he testified, at trial, which is the Samaritan. 3 Pickens, 446 Mich at 314 (alteration in original), quoting People v Beach, 429 Mich 450, 491 ; 418 NW2d 861 (1988). 4 Pickens, 446 Mich at 314 . 5 I decline the majority’s invitation to weigh in on whether fear or terror may qualify as the heat of passion necessary to support a voluntary manslaughter instruction because doing so would build a strawman argument relating to counsel’s performance that might be erroneously relied upon in future cases. 6 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW 2023That is where she’s made contact with the other witness, he testified, at trial, which is the Samaritan. 3 Pickens, 446 Mich at 314 (alteration in original), quoting People v Beach, 429 Mich 450, 491 ; 418 NW2d 861 (1988). 4 Pickens, 446 Mich at 314 . 5 I decline the majority’s invitation to weigh in on whether fear or terror may qualify as the heat of passion necessary to support a voluntary manslaughter instruction because doing so would build a strawman argument relating to counsel’s performance that might be erroneously relied upon in future cases. 6 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW | 1 | 2 |
People v. Rapergreen2 sentences2023In addition, the Court of Appeals erred to the extent it determined that People v Raper, 222 Mich App 475 (1997), created a bright-line rule under which the absence of a voluntary manslaughter instruction is automatically considered harmless if the jury was instructed on both first- and second-degree murder and convicted the defendant of first-degree murder. 2015See People v Raper, 222 Mich App 475, 483-484 ; 563 NW2d 709 (1997).4 Defendant contends, however, as he did in the context of self-defense, that had the trial court, prior to trial, not excluded expert testimony on battered person syndrome and the testimony of witnesses who were supposedly prepared to testify to abuse, there would have been sufficient evidence to support a voluntary manslaughter instruction and the jury may have seriously considered a lesser charge.5 First, when defendant argued before trial in favor of admitting the evidence at issue, he focused exclusively on the now-reject | 1 | 2 |
People v. Kowalskigreen2 sentences2015People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 503 ; 803 NW2d 200 (2011). -2- But even if defendant had not waived this issue, we would conclude that a voluntary manslaughter instruction was not supported by the evidence. 2015People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 503 ; 803 NW2d 200 (2011). -2- But even if defendant had not waived this issue, we would conclude that a voluntary manslaughter instruction was not supported by the evidence. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Carinesgreen2 sentences2021See Carines, 460 Mich at 763 ; Mitchell, 301 Mich App at 286 ; McMullan, 284 Mich App at 156 . 2017Although defendant preserved the former argument by requesting that a voluntary manslaughter instruction be given, he failed to preserve his second argument by objecting to the court’s instruction at trial.75 When reviewing a preserved claim of instruction error, “this Court views the instructions as a whole to determine whether the issues to be tried were adequately presented to the jury.”76 The trial court’s decision regarding the applicability of a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court chooses an outcome that “falls outside the range of p | 1 | 2 |
People v. Cartergreen2 sentences2020We decline to address Adams’s argument because Adams waived review of this issue by expressly approving the jury instructions. “[I]ssues for appeal must be preserved in the record by notation of objection . . . .” People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 214 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000). 2020We decline to address Adams’s argument because Adams waived review of this issue by expressly approving the jury instructions. “[I]ssues for appeal must be preserved in the record by notation of objection . . . .” People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 214 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Trakhtenberggreen2 sentences2026Defendant has to demonstrate “a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.” Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich at 51 (citations omitted). 2026Defendant has to demonstrate “a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.” Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich at 51 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Martingreen1 sentence2025Defendant contends they state a blanket rule, based on People v Jones, 395 Mich 379 ; 236 NW2d 461 (1975), concerning giving involuntary manslaughter jury instructions when a defendant, as here, claims “accident”: “[W]hen accident is asserted as a defense and a voluntary manslaughter instruction is given by the court sua sponte, the court must also instruct on involuntary manslaughter.” See, e.g., Hess, 214 Mich App at 39 ; accord Martin, 130 Mich App at 611 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pickensgreen2 sentences2023I would not, however, “[a]ssum[e] without deciding that the majority is correct that defense counsel performed deficiently in failing to request a voluntary manslaughter instruction at defendant’s murder trial.” I need not do so because “Michigan constitutional law has long held that ‘[e]rrors which cannot possibly create any prejudice to the rights of one charged with crime ought not to, and cannot, operate as a ground for a new trial.’ ” 1 As Justice COOLEY explained, “[i]t is possible to be so nice in such matters as to render a legal conviction of crime practically impossible; and while th 2023I would not, however, “[a]ssum[e] without deciding that the majority is correct that defense counsel performed deficiently in failing to request a voluntary manslaughter instruction at defendant’s murder trial.” I need not do so because “Michigan constitutional law has long held that ‘[e]rrors which cannot possibly create any prejudice to the rights of one charged with crime ought not to, and cannot, operate as a ground for a new trial.’ ” 1 As Justice COOLEY explained, “[i]t is possible to be so nice in such matters as to render a legal conviction of crime practically impossible; and while th | 1 | 1 |
Strang v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2023I would not, however, “[a]ssum[e] without deciding that the majority is correct that defense counsel performed deficiently in failing to request a voluntary manslaughter instruction at defendant’s murder trial.” I need not do so because “Michigan constitutional law has long held that ‘[e]rrors which cannot possibly create any prejudice to the rights of one charged with crime ought not to, and cannot, operate as a ground for a new trial.’ ” 1 As Justice COOLEY explained, “[i]t is possible to be so nice in such matters as to render a legal conviction of crime practically impossible; and while th | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ropergreen2 sentences2018The provocation necessary to mitigate a homicide from murder to manslaughter is that which causes the defendant to act out of passion rather than reason; that is, adequate provocation is that which would cause the reasonable person to lose control. [Roper, 286 Mich App at 87 (citation and quotation marks omitted).] Based on the evidence presented at trial, the trial court properly declined to provide a voluntary manslaughter instruction because of the absence of the degree of provocation necessary to mitigate the killing from murder to manslaughter. 2018Roper, 286 Mich App at 87 . | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Gonzalezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Clarkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Tierney
green
2 sentences2016The “passion” necessary to support a voluntary manslaughter instruction must be “that which would cause a reasonable person to lose control.” People v Tierney, 266 Mich App 687, 715 ; 703 NW2d 204 (2005) (citation omitted). 2016The “passion” necessary to support a voluntary manslaughter instruction must be “that which would cause a reasonable person to lose control.” People v Tierney, 266 Mich App 687, 715 ; 703 NW2d 204 (2005) (citation omitted). | 4 | 2015–2016 |
People v. Armstrong
green
2 sentences2017Although defendant preserved the former argument by requesting that a voluntary manslaughter instruction be given, he failed to preserve his second argument by objecting to the court’s instruction at trial.75 When reviewing a preserved claim of instruction error, “this Court views the instructions as a whole to determine whether the issues to be tried were adequately presented to the jury.”76 The trial court’s decision regarding the applicability of a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court chooses an outcome that “falls outside the range of p 2017Although defendant preserved the former argument by requesting that a voluntary manslaughter instruction be given, he failed to preserve his second argument by objecting to the court’s instruction at trial.75 When reviewing a preserved claim of instruction error, “this Court views the instructions as a whole to determine whether the issues to be tried were adequately presented to the jury.”76 The trial court’s decision regarding the applicability of a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court chooses an outcome that “falls outside the range of p | 3 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Sabin
green
2 sentences2017Although defendant preserved the former argument by requesting that a voluntary manslaughter instruction be given, he failed to preserve his second argument by objecting to the court’s instruction at trial.75 When reviewing a preserved claim of instruction error, “this Court views the instructions as a whole to determine whether the issues to be tried were adequately presented to the jury.”76 The trial court’s decision regarding the applicability of a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court chooses an outcome that “falls outside the range of p 2017Although defendant preserved the former argument by requesting that a voluntary manslaughter instruction be given, he failed to preserve his second argument by objecting to the court’s instruction at trial.75 When reviewing a preserved claim of instruction error, “this Court views the instructions as a whole to determine whether the issues to be tried were adequately presented to the jury.”76 The trial court’s decision regarding the applicability of a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court chooses an outcome that “falls outside the range of p | 3 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Ora Jones
red
2 sentences2025Defendant contends they state a blanket rule, based on People v Jones, 395 Mich 379 ; 236 NW2d 461 (1975), concerning giving involuntary manslaughter jury instructions when a defendant, as here, claims “accident”: “[W]hen accident is asserted as a defense and a voluntary manslaughter instruction is given by the court sua sponte, the court must also instruct on involuntary manslaughter.” See, e.g., Hess, 214 Mich App at 39 ; accord Martin, 130 Mich App at 611 . 2025Defendant contends they state a blanket rule, based on People v Jones, 395 Mich 379 ; 236 NW2d 461 (1975), concerning giving involuntary manslaughter jury instructions when a defendant, as here, claims “accident”: “[W]hen accident is asserted as a defense and a voluntary manslaughter instruction is given by the court sua sponte, the court must also instruct on involuntary manslaughter.” See, e.g., Hess, 214 Mich App at 39 ; accord Martin, 130 Mich App at 611 . | 2 | 1995–2025 |
People v. Dobek
green
2 sentences2017In reviewing a preserved claim of instruction error, “this Court views the instructions as a whole to determine whether the issues to be tried were adequately presented to the jury.”16 The trial court’s decision regarding the applicability of a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court chooses an outcome that “falls outside the range of 11 Id. at 190 . 12 Id. at 178-179 . 13 Id. at 164 . 14 People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 657 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000). 15 People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 65 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). 16 People v Arms 2017In reviewing a preserved claim of instruction error, “this Court views the instructions as a whole to determine whether the issues to be tried were adequately presented to the jury.”16 The trial court’s decision regarding the applicability of a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court chooses an outcome that “falls outside the range of 11 Id. at 190 . 12 Id. at 178-179 . 13 Id. at 164 . 14 People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 657 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000). 15 People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 65 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). 16 People v Arms | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Darden
green
2 sentences2017In Darden, 230 Mich App at 604 , this Court similarly found sufficient evidence to support a finding of adequate provocation where the defendant shot at two men who were stealing a transmission from his yard, a verbal confrontation occurred -5- between the defendant and the two men, and the defendant thought that one of the men had a gun. 2017In Darden, 230 Mich App at 604 , this Court similarly found sufficient evidence to support a finding of adequate provocation where the defendant shot at two men who were stealing a transmission from his yard, a verbal confrontation occurred -5- between the defendant and the two men, and the defendant thought that one of the men had a gun. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Reese
green
2 sentences2016A conviction for voluntary -1- manslaughter is supported when “ ‘the defendant killed in the heat of passion, the passion was caused by adequate provocation, and there was not a lapse of time during which a reasonable person could control his passions.’ ” People v Reese, 491 Mich 127, 143 ; 815 NW2d 85 (2012), quoting People v Mendoza, 468 Mich 527, 535-536 ; 664 NW2d 685 (2003). 2016A conviction for voluntary -1- manslaughter is supported when “ ‘the defendant killed in the heat of passion, the passion was caused by adequate provocation, and there was not a lapse of time during which a reasonable person could control his passions.’ ” People v Reese, 491 Mich 127, 143 ; 815 NW2d 85 (2012), quoting People v Mendoza, 468 Mich 527, 535-536 ; 664 NW2d 685 (2003). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Ericksen
green
1 sentence2025Even assuming defendant only had the gun because he believed he may have needed it to protect himself, this still does not support a finding that defendant acted in the heat of passion. 14 Defendant admitted that no one informed the bar manager that Marroquin, who remained inside the bar, was armed and it could be dangerous if a fight occurred. -9- In sum, without evidentiary support for a voluntary manslaughter instruction, defense counsel’s decision not to request one cannot constitute deficient performance.15 See Ericksen, 288 Mich App at 201 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Hess
green
1 sentence2025Defendant contends they state a blanket rule, based on People v Jones, 395 Mich 379 ; 236 NW2d 461 (1975), concerning giving involuntary manslaughter jury instructions when a defendant, as here, claims “accident”: “[W]hen accident is asserted as a defense and a voluntary manslaughter instruction is given by the court sua sponte, the court must also instruct on involuntary manslaughter.” See, e.g., Hess, 214 Mich App at 39 ; accord Martin, 130 Mich App at 611 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Wade
green
2 sentences2023I would not, however, “[a]ssum[e] without deciding that the majority is correct that defense counsel performed deficiently in failing to request a voluntary manslaughter instruction at defendant’s murder trial.” I need not do so because “Michigan constitutional law has long held that ‘[e]rrors which cannot possibly create any prejudice to the rights of one charged with crime ought not to, and cannot, operate as a ground for a new trial.’ ” 1 As Justice COOLEY explained, “[i]t is possible to be so nice in such matters as to render a legal conviction of crime practically impossible; and while th 2023I would not, however, “[a]ssum[e] without deciding that the majority is correct that defense counsel performed deficiently in failing to request a voluntary manslaughter instruction at defendant’s murder trial.” I need not do so because “Michigan constitutional law has long held that ‘[e]rrors which cannot possibly create any prejudice to the rights of one charged with crime ought not to, and cannot, operate as a ground for a new trial.’ ” 1 As Justice COOLEY explained, “[i]t is possible to be so nice in such matters as to render a legal conviction of crime practically impossible; and while th | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Beach
green
2 sentences2023That is where she’s made contact with the other witness, he testified, at trial, which is the Samaritan. 3 Pickens, 446 Mich at 314 (alteration in original), quoting People v Beach, 429 Mich 450, 491 ; 418 NW2d 861 (1988). 4 Pickens, 446 Mich at 314 . 5 I decline the majority’s invitation to weigh in on whether fear or terror may qualify as the heat of passion necessary to support a voluntary manslaughter instruction because doing so would build a strawman argument relating to counsel’s performance that might be erroneously relied upon in future cases. 6 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW 2023That is where she’s made contact with the other witness, he testified, at trial, which is the Samaritan. 3 Pickens, 446 Mich at 314 (alteration in original), quoting People v Beach, 429 Mich 450, 491 ; 418 NW2d 861 (1988). 4 Pickens, 446 Mich at 314 . 5 I decline the majority’s invitation to weigh in on whether fear or terror may qualify as the heat of passion necessary to support a voluntary manslaughter instruction because doing so would build a strawman argument relating to counsel’s performance that might be erroneously relied upon in future cases. 6 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Houthoofd
green
1 sentence2023“For preserved constitutional errors . . . the reviewing court must determine whether the beneficiary of the error has established that it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Houthoofd, 487 Mich 568, 587 ; 790 NW2d 315 (2010); see People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 505 ; 803 NW2d 200 (2011) (holding whether a defense attorney waived or forfeited his or her client’s right to challenge the jury instructions is a constitutional issue). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. McMullan
green
1 sentence2021See Carines, 460 Mich at 763 ; Mitchell, 301 Mich App at 286 ; McMullan, 284 Mich App at 156 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Jackson (On Reconsideration)
green
2 sentences2017Although defendant preserved the former argument by requesting that a voluntary manslaughter instruction be given, he failed to preserve his second argument by objecting to the court’s instruction at trial.75 When reviewing a preserved claim of instruction error, “this Court views the instructions as a whole to determine whether the issues to be tried were adequately presented to the jury.”76 The trial court’s decision regarding the applicability of a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court chooses an outcome that “falls outside the range of p 2017Although defendant preserved the former argument by requesting that a voluntary manslaughter instruction be given, he failed to preserve his second argument by objecting to the court’s instruction at trial.75 When reviewing a preserved claim of instruction error, “this Court views the instructions as a whole to determine whether the issues to be tried were adequately presented to the jury.”76 The trial court’s decision regarding the applicability of a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court chooses an outcome that “falls outside the range of p | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Pipes green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Sullivan green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. MacK green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Mills green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Dupree green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Lester green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| People v. Cornell green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| People v. Pouncey neutral | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Mroue green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.