From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Goad

Michigan Court of Appeals
Sep 22, 1981
311 N.W.2d 457 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

Docket No. 50591.

Decided September 22, 1981.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, David E. McClernan, Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary C. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, for the people.

Paul K. Hood, for defendant on appeal.

Before: DANHOF, C.J., and M.F. CAVANAGH and D.R. FREEMAN, JJ.

Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.


Following his sentence of life imprisonment, defendant appeals by right from his jury conviction of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, contrary to MCL 750.520b(1)(f); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(f). The defense presented at the trial of this cause was that of insanity. In its instructions to the jury, the trial court, over defense counsel's objection, gave the dispositional instruction contained in CJI 7:8:08 which explains the disposition to be made of a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity. It is this instruction which forms the basis for the first issue raised on appeal.

While there has been some support for defendant's position that the holding in People v Cole, 382 Mich. 695; 172 N.W.2d 354 (1969), should no longer be followed, the Cole rationale remains the rule in Michigan and has been followed in People v Tenbrink, 93 Mich. App. 326; 287 N.W.2d 223 (1979), lv den 408 Mich. 945 (1980), People v Thomas, 96 Mich. App. 210; 292 N.W.2d 523 (1980), and People v Rone (On Remand), 101 Mich. App. 811; 300 N.W.2d 705 (1980). Although none of these cases has specifically held that the court may so instruct the jury over an objection by defense counsel, it is implicit in a fair reading of those decisions that a trial judge has independent authority in that regard. Accordingly, we find no error requiring reversal in the trial court's instruction in this regard.

See People v Szczytko, 390 Mich. 278; 212 N.W.2d 211 (1973), committee comment to CJI 7:8:08, and People v Rone (On Remand), 101 Mich. App. 811, 828; 300 N.W.2d 705 (1980).

As to the remaining three issues raised on appeal, we find no reversible error.

Defendant's convictions are affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Goad

Michigan Court of Appeals
Sep 22, 1981
311 N.W.2d 457 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

People v. Goad

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v GOAD

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Sep 22, 1981

Citations

311 N.W.2d 457 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
311 N.W.2d 457

Citing Cases

People v. Goad

On his appeal as of right, Goad claimed the dispositional instruction (CJI 7:8:08) should not have been…