endomorphosis/Caselaw_Access_Project_JSON

1"{\"id\": \"2183548\", \"name\": \"PEOPLE v. LANGSTON\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"People v. Langston\", \"decision_date\": \"1978-11-06\", \"docket_number\": \"Docket No. 31327\", \"first_page\": \"656\", \"last_page\": \"662\", \"citations\": \"86 Mich. App. 656\", \"volume\": \"86\", \"reporter\": \"Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.\", \"court\": \"Michigan Court of Appeals\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Michigan\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T18:54:50.253895+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"Before: Danhof, C.J., and V. J. Brennan and R. H. Campbell, JJ.\", \"parties\": \"PEOPLE v LANGSTON\", \"head_matter\": \"PEOPLE v LANGSTON\\nDocket No. 31327.\\nSubmitted June 5, 1978, at Grand Rapids.\\nDecided November 6, 1978.\\nEdwin L. Langston was convicted of first-degree felony murder, Van Bur\\u00e9n Circuit Court, Meyer Warshawsky, J. The killing occurred during the commission of an armed robbery in which the defendant was an accomplice of the person who shot the victim. Defendant appeals, alleging error in the trial court\\u2019s instructions to the jury. Held:\\nIn order to be liable for murder an accomplice to a robbery must have acted with the intent to kill or in reckless disregard of a known and high degree of risk that death or serious bodily harm might occur. In this case the trial court\\u2019s instruction to the jury failed to inform the jury that malice entails a more than foreseeable risk of death and is based on the defendant\\u2019s subjective awareness of the\\\" risks and consequences of his acts. The instruction was not sufficient to support a conviction of first-degree murder.\\nReversed and remanded.\\nV. J. Brennan, J., dissented. He would hold that although the existence of malice is a question for the jury, the element of malice sufficient to elevate a killing to felony murder is established by finding that the killing occurred in the perpetration of one of the felonies enumerated in the first-degree murder statute.\\nReferences for Points in Headnotes\\n[1] 52 Am Jur 2d, Malice \\u00a7\\u00a7 1-7.\\n40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide \\u00a7\\u00a7 41-43, 50, 51, 71-79, 227, 247, 454, 472, 498-500.\\nInference of malice or intent to kill where killing is by blow without weapon. 22 ALR2d 854.\\nPresumption of deliberation or premeditation from the fact of killing. 86 ALR2d 656.\\nPresumption of deliberation or premeditation from the circumstances attending the killing. 96 ALR3d 1435.\\nWhat felonies are inherently or forseeably dangerous to human life for purpose of felony \\u2014 murder doctrine. 50 ALR3d 397.\\n[2-4] 40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide \\u00a7\\u00a7 34-40.\\n[4] What constitutes \\\"imminently dangerous\\u201d act within homicide statute. 67 ALR3d 900.\\nOpinion of the Court\\n1. Homicide \\u2014 Murder\\u2014Malice\\u2014Inference by Jury.\\nMalice, under Michigan common law, is a necessary element of murder which may be inferred by a jury from the commission of an underlying felony but may not be imputed to a defendant by the court.\\n2. Homicide \\u2014 Felony Murder \\u2014 Accomplice Liability \\u2014 Malice.\\nThe reasoning which supports the rule that Michigan does not have a felony-murder doctrine leads to the conclusion that an accomplice to a robbery may not be held liable for a murder committed in the course of that robbery unless he acted with malice.\\n3. Homicide \\u2014 Felony Murder \\u2014 Accomplice Liability.\\nAn accomplice to a robbery, in order to be held liable for a murder committed in the course of that robbery, must have acted with the intent to kill or in reckless disregard of a known and high degree of risk that death or serious bodily harm might occur.\\n4. Homicide \\u2014 Instructions to Jury \\u2014 Murder\\u2014Malice.\\nA trial court\\u2019s instructions to a jury that a murder must have been found to be \\\"fairly within the scope of a criminal enterprise and it might have been expected to happen in the course of committing this robbery with a pistol\\u201d is not sufficient to support a conviction of an accomplice to a robbery of first-degree murder because it fails to inform the jury that malice entails a more than foreseeable risk of death and is based on a defendant\\u2019s subjective awareness of the risks and consequences of his acts.\\nDissent by V. J. Brennan, J.\\n5. Homicide \\u2014 Murder\\u2014Felony Murder \\u2014 Malice\\u2014Statutes.\\nThe existence of malice, in a trial for murder, is a question for the jury; however, the element of malice sufficient to elevate a killing to felony murder is established by finding that the killing occurred in the perpetration of one of the felonies enumerated in the ffrst-degree murder statute (MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548).\\nFrank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Ward S. Hamlin, Jr., Prosecuting Attorney (by Thomas C. Nelson, Assistant Attorney General, Prosecuting Attorneys Appellate Service), for the people.\\nRolf E. Berg, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for defendant on appeal.\\nBefore: Danhof, C.J., and V. J. Brennan and R. H. Campbell, JJ.\\nCircuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.\", \"word_count\": \"2017\", \"char_count\": \"11978\", \"text\": \"Danhof, C.J.\\nDefendant was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree felony murder under MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548, and sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment. Claiming several errors in the proceedings below, he appeals as of right.\\nDefendant mainly objects to the trial court's instructions on mens rea. By our disposition of this issue, we eliminate the need to discuss other alleged grounds for reversal.\\nAt trial, the prosecution claimed defendant had intentionally aided Ronald Wilson in the armed robbery of a store, and that Ronald Wilson, in committing that robbery, shot and killed Arretta Lou Ingraham. The people proceeded on a felony-murder theory that any killing committed in the course of a robbery is first-degree murder under MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548, and that an accomplice to the underlying felony is liable as a principal for the murder. Citing People v Fountain, 71 Mich App 491; 248 NW2d 589 (1976), defendant argues that MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548 is not a true felony-murder statute as it only applies after murder has been found, and then only to establish the degree of the offense. Under Michigan common law, malice is still an independent, necessary element of murder which may be inferred by the jury from the commission of an underlying felony, but may not be imputed by the court.\\nWe agree with defendant and the panel in People v Fountain, supra, that there is no felony-murder doctrine in Michigan. The statutory and common law foundations for this ruling are well set out in the Fountain opinion. We add here that the ruling also is in line with the basic premise that a criminal state of mind is the essence of crime. See LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law, \\u00a7 65, pp 515-17. In addition, by requiring an independent finding of malice, the rule does not substantially thwart the goal of deterring crime, as the punishment of negligent conduct only has a marginal deterrent effect, nor does it overburden the state in prosecuting criminals, as malice may often be inferred from the nature of the underlying felony and the circumstances surrounding its commission. People v Fountain, .supra.\\nFrom this view of felony murder it follows that an accomplice to robbery cannot be liable for a murder committed in the course of that robbery unless he acted with malice. While a majority of state courts hold an accomplice liable for all the foreseeable consequences of the criminal scheme he advances, LaFave & Scott, supra, we find that accomplice liability predicated on negligence, even when the crime involves a more serious state of mind, is as obnoxious as felony murder to the basic precepts and purposes of our criminal law. Logically, we cannot accept the former doctrine while rejecting the latter. Indeed, as Professors LaFave and Scott point out, the negligence standard for accomplice liability only makes sense in the context of felony murder \\u2014 when a principal can be convicted for homicide without any showing of recklessness or intent, it is no less objectionable to hold the accomplice liable without showing he acted with a guilty mind. We find that it makes little sense to convict either the principal or accomplice under such circumstances.\\nMichigan case law also provides some support for this conclusion. Thus, the Michigan Supreme Court in People v Knapp, 26 Mich 112 (1872), broadly held that an accomplice is liable for any acts fairly within the common enterprise that might have been expected to happen. Later, it narrowed that decision in People v Foley, 59 Mich 553; 26 NW 699 (1886), by holding that an accomplice to an assault cannot be found liable for a robbery that was within the responsibility of all the assailants, but not shown as a matter of fact to be within the defendant's specific intent. The inference is that foreseeability is a necessary but not a sufficient element of accomplice liability for unintended consequences. See also People v Koharski, 177 Mich 194; 142 NW 1097 (1913); People v Belton, 160 Mich 416; 125 NW 386 (1910); People v Cleveland, 107 Mich 367; 65 NW 216 (1895).\\nWe hold, therefore, that to be liable for murder an accomplice to robbery must have acted with the intent to kill or in reckless disregard of a known and high degree of risk that death or serious bodily harm might occur.\\nIn the instant case, the only instruction that indicated a need to find some mens rea beyond the intent to aid and abet robbery was the judge's charge that the murder must have been found to be \\\"fairly within the scope of a criminal enterprise and it might have been expected to happen in the course of committing this robbery with a pistol\\\". That charge does not satisfy the test we have laid out in this opinion as it fails to inform the jury that malice entails a more than foreseeable risk of death and is based on defendant's subjective awareness of the risks and consequences of his acts. LaFave & Scott, supra, \\u00a771, p 554; CJI, 16:2:03 and commentary, pp 16-90-16-99. Although the record contains facts from which an inference of malice might have been drawn (i.e., aiding an armed robbery itself creates a risk of death), the issue must be retried and put before the jury. People v Fountain, supra.\\nReversed and remanded for a new trial.\\nR. H. Campbell, J., concurred.\"}"