However, jury instructions must be read in their entirety. People v Haggai, 332 Mich. 467; 52 N.W.2d 186 (1952). When read as a whole, the instructions given in the instant case accurately stated the applicable law.
"When reviewing an instruction to determine whether or not it stated the applicable law or prejudiced the defendant, we will examine the instruction as a whole rather than in small excerpts. People v Pearson, 13 Mich. App. 371 [ 164 N.W.2d 568] (1968), and People v Haggai, 332 Mich. 467 [ 52 N.W.2d 186] (1952)."
"When reviewing an instruction to determine whether or not it stated the applicable law or prejudiced the defendant, we will examine the instruction as a whole rather than in small excerpts. People v. Pearson, 13 Mich. App. 371 (1968), and People v. Haggai, 332 Mich. 467 (1952). Moreover, it is well settled that, absent a showing of manifest injustice, criminal defendants seeking a review of allegedly erroneous instructions to the jury must make a timely objection to those instructions in accordance with GCR 1963, 516.2 which provides:
When reviewing an instruction to determine whether or not it stated the applicable law or prejudiced the defendant, we will examine the instruction as a whole rather than in small excerpts. People v. Pearson, 13 Mich. App. 371 (1968), and People v. Haggai, 332 Mich. 467 (1952). Moreover, it is well settled that, absent a showing of manifest injustice, criminal defendants seeking a review of allegedly erroneous instructions to the jury must make a timely objection to those instructions in accordance with GCR 1963, 516.2 which provides:
However, jury instructions must be read as a whole. People v. Dye (1959), 356 Mich. 271 ( cert den 361 U.S. 935 [ 80 S Ct 367, 4 L Ed 2d 355]); People v. Haggai (1952), 332 Mich. 467; People v. Carr (1966), 2 Mich. App. 222. When the entire charge is considered it is clear that the trial court emphasized the fact that being armed is an element of the offense.
The applicable statute, MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.305), includes the words "any felony", which conceivably led the judge to make such a reference. The Supreme Court of this state has reiterated on numerous occasions that when an attack is made on a court's jury charge, the whole charge must be considered and construed in context, and that its correctness cannot be tested by examining particular parts. E.g., People v. Haggai (1952), 332 Mich. 467; People v. Loudenslager (1950), 327 Mich. 718. See, also, People v. Goldsby (1969), 17 Mich. App. 16; People v. Gardner (1968), 13 Mich. App. 16.
See People v. Liggett (1967), 378 Mich. 706. We must therefore consider the charge in its entirety to determine whether it was substantially correct and not prejudicial to the rights of defendant; People v. Haggai (1952), 332 Mich. 467, and People v. Sura (1942), 301 Mich. 124. Defendant bases his claim of error on the well-settled law of this State that in criminal cases where the issue of self-defense has been raised, the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, still rests with the people, and that the burden is not on defendant to satisfy the jury that he acted in self-defense, but rather the people have the burden of showing facts that would convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense.