Opinion
Docket No. 30971.
Decided November 14, 1977.
Appeal from Wayne, Charles Kaufman, J. Submitted June 14, 1977, at Detroit. (Docket No. 30971.) Decided November 14, 1977.
Edward J. Connolly was convicted of obtaining money over $100 by false pretenses. Defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward R. Wilson, Research, Training Appeals, and Craig L. John, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
John R. Hayes and Carl Ziemba, for defendant.
The defendant was convicted in a jury trial of obtaining over $100 by false pretenses. MCLA 750.218; MSA 28.415. At issue is whether it was error for the trial court to refuse to give a requested cautionary instruction to the jury concerning accomplice testimony. People v McCoy, 392 Mich. 231; 220 N.W.2d 456 (1974).
The prosecutor gave immunity to witness Francis L. Wisniewski in return for his testimony at trial. Wisniewski confessed to being part of a scheme to defraud an insurance company after his motorboat had been damaged. Wisniewski was an accomplice because of his deep involvement in the fraudulent transaction. In People v Threlkeld, 47 Mich. App. 691, 696; 209 N.W.2d 852 (1973), we said:
"* * * a person is an `accomplice' if he could be charged with the same offense as the accused is charged." (Emphasis added.)
Further, we find that while the defense's request for the McCoy instruction was oral and not written, it was nevertheless made. We distinguish the instant case from People v Wynn, 386 Mich. 627; 194 N.W.2d 354 (1972), because here, as in People v Herbert Van Smith, Jr, 388 Mich. 457, 460; 203 N.W.2d 94 (1972), there was an oral request to charge. Statute and court rule, GCR 1963, 516.1 and MCLA 768.29; MSA 28.1052 do not prescribe the time at which a request must be made. Neither statute nor court rule forecloses oral requests nor limits the time for making them.
Where, as here, the trial judge specifically instructed the jury on the credibility of the defendant, the court owes the defendant a balanced, fair instruction on accomplice testimony. McCoy, supra.
We have carefully considered the remaining issues on appeal, but due to our disposition of this case, we need not discuss them here.
Reversed, remanded for a new trial.