COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF 
| Chapter 22: Jury Instructions |
22-1 Standardized Instructions
Unlike many states, Michigan's standard criminal jury instructions do not have the official sanction of the Michigan Supreme Court, and their use is discretionary. Trial judges are free to use all or part of standardized instructions and should not hesitate to modify or disregard a standard instruction when presented with a clearer or more accurate instruction. People v Vaughn, 447 Mich 217 (1994); People v Petrella, 424 Mich 221 (1985).
The criminal defense bar can certainly look to the pattern instructions, but need not feel bound by them. Defense lawyers should therefore think about what instructions would be most helpful to a case and present those instructions and applicable law to the trial court. Most pattern jury instructions remain fairly inscrutable to juries, and in Michigan where these instructions are given orally rather than in writing, the potential for confusion is enormous. So even if there is a Michigan Criminal Jury Instruction which applies to your case, think about whether it tells the jury in plain language what you want them to know about the law in your case.
Some legal principles to keep in mind regarding jury instructions are:
1. Criminal defendants are guaranteed a unanimous jury verdict under the state constitution. Const 1963, art 1, §14; People v Cooks, 446 Mich 503, 510-511 (1994). Consequently, trial courts are required to give proper instructions regarding the unanimity requirement.
a. Fourteenth Amendment due process requires that the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged, Mullaney v Wilbur, 421 US 684; 95 SCt 1881; 44 LEd2d 508 (1975), and the trial court must instruct the jury on the burden of proof. Holland v US, 348 US 121; 75 SCt 127; 99 LEd2d 150 (1954).
2. Under the common law of Michigan, trial judges are responsible for insuring that cases are presented to juries in an intelligent manner so that the jurors have a clear and correct understanding of what it is they are to decide. People v Martin, 392 Mich 553, 562 (1974); People v Townes, 391 Mich 578, 587 (1974); People v Allen, 109 Mich App 147, 158-159 (1981). This responsibility demands that the trial judge instruct a jury regarding the general features of a case, define the offense, and explain what must be proven to establish that offense. People v Vaughn, 447 Mich 217 (1994).
3. Where the instruction pertains to an essential element of the charged offense, the trial judge's duty to adequately instruct must be adhered to even absent a request from counsel. Failure to recognize these instructional responsibilities may demand reversal where an erroneous or misleading charge denies a criminal defendant the right to have a properly instructed jury consider the evidence. People v Vaughn, 447 Mich 217 (1994); People v Petrella, 424 Mich 221; 277 (1985); People v Pepper, 389 Mich 317, 322 (1973).
a. The rights to trial by jury and to due process of law include the right to have a jury determine each element of an offense, People v Goss (After Remand), 446 Mich 587 (1994), cert den 514 US 1077 (1995). The judge may not take an element of the offense away from the jury. People v Reed, 393 Mich 342, cert den 422 US 1044 (1975); People v Tice, 220 Mich App 47 (1996).
4. A trial court is required to give a requested instruction on the defense theory, except where the theory is not supported by evidence. People v Lemons, 454 Mich 234, 245 (1997).
5. A trial court is not required to present an instruction of the defendant's theory to the jury unless the defendant makes such a request. People v Maleski, 220 Mich App 518, 521 (1997).
6. The trial court is required to give an instruction for a cognate lesser included offense if: (1) the principal offense and the lesser offense are of the same class or category, and (2) the evidence adduced at trial would support a conviction of the lesser offense. People v Hendricks, 446 Mich 435, 444 (1994); People v Beach, 429 Mich 450 (1988).
7. There must be more than a modicum of evidence to support the lesser charge; there must be sufficient evidence that the defendant could be convicted of the lesser offense. People v Pouncey, 437 Mich 382, 387 (1991). In a first-degree murder case, the trial court is required to instruct on second-degree murder (even in the absence of a request). People v Henry, 395 Mich 367 (1975).
22.1 Motion for Jury Instruction(s) [Download: WP | Word | PDF]
COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF
____________________________________
PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff,
vs No. 
Hon. 
,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
The Defendant, 
, by 
attorney, requests that this Court give the attached
proposed instruction(s) for the following reasons:
1. 
is charged with 
.
2. An issue in this case is
3. 
4. 
5. Because Michigan's CJI do not have the official sanction of the Michigan Supreme Court, their usage is not
required and trial judges should examine those instructions carefully to ensure their accuracy and
appropriateness to cases before them. MCL 768.29;
6. A criminal defendant has a right to have a properly instructed jury consider the evidence presented against him. People v Liggett, 378 Mich 706, 714 (1967). This prerogative emanates from a criminal defendant's right under the federal and state constitutions to a fair trial by jury, and is entrusted, as an initial matter, to trial judges, whose general duty to properly instruct is specifically mandated by MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052.
7. Under both Michigan and federal law, the right to a jury determination on all essential elements of a criminal offense is a prerogative of constitutional import. US Const., Ams. VI, XIV; Const. 1963, art. 1, §20; People v Vaughn, 447 Mich 217 (1994).
8. Under the common law of Michigan, trial judges are responsible for insuring that cases are presented to juries in an intelligent manner so that the jurors have a clear and correct understanding of what it is they are to decide. People v Martin, 392 Mich 553, 562 (1974); People v Townes, 391 Mich 578, 587 (1974); People v Allen, 109 Mich App 147, 158-159 (1981).
9. A trial court is required to give a requested instruction, as long as the theory is supported by evidence. People v Lemons, 454 Mich 234, 245 (1997).
10. 
For these reasons, 
requests that this Court grant 
request to give the proposed
instruction(s).
Respectfully submitted,
___________________
Attorney for Defendant