*1 PEOPLE WEEDER February 4, application by 2004. the Docket No. 120107. Decided On people appeal, Supreme defendant and for leave to Court, granting leave, in lieu of affirmed the decision of the Court convictions, regarding of certain vacated the decision of Appeals reversing the Court of the defendant’s con- victions, and remanded the case to that Court for reconsideration. Joseph C. Weeder was in the Oakland Circuit Court with two second-degree counts of murder and other felonies after he fled attempted stop people from an traffic and two were killed when his by jury vehicle struck another. The defendant was convicted felonies, including numerous two counts of murder, second-degree court, ter instead of after the trial Denise J., Langford-Morris, Karen refused to instruct the on the ele- negligent Appeals, P.J., ments of homicide. The Court of and White, JJ., unpublished opinion per curiam, and in an Sawyer deter- Saad, mining that the defendant had been a fair trial because of denied negligent homicide, the refusal to instruct on reversed the man- slaughter convictions, replacing negligent them with con- victions, prosecutor gave option retrying and the defen- manslaughter charges (Docket 217454). people dant on the No. sought appeal. and the defendant leave to opinion per curiam, signed In an Chief Justice Corrigan, Supreme
Justices
Court
Young,
Taylor,
Weaver,
Markman,
held:
negligent
MCL 750.325 includes the crime of
homicide within
every charged
operation
crime of
a vehicle. The statute also allows for a conviction of
any
charged with,
homicide in
case in which the defendant is
but
guilty of, manslaughter
found not
of a
apply
vehicle. MCL 750.325 does not
to this case because the defen-
murder,
second-degree
manslaughter.
dant was
reversing
for invol-
decision
the convictions
untary manslaughter
replacing
negli-
them with convictions of
gent homicide
vacated.
on the basis MCL 750.325 must be
remand,
negli-
On
must determine whether
necessarily
gent homicide,
is a
included lesser
State Defender Chari K. (by Grove) for the defendant. presents question
Per Curiam. This case a driver murder following an auto-related death must receive a negli- gent Following People homicide instruction. v McIn- tosh, (1977), Appeals yes. answered We overrule McIntosh Appeals remand to the Court of for further review. appeal Defendant seeks to Appeals affirmance of two convictions for a vehicle operating intoxicating liquor while under the influence of People v Weeder thereby causing 257.625(4); death, MCL two convic- first-degree fleeing eluding, tions for MCL 750.479a(5); operating and one conviction for a motor suspended, subsequent vehicle while license offense, 257.904(3)(b). MCL Defendant was also convicted on involuntary manslaughter, two counts of Appeals 750.321, which convictions the Court of prosecutor reversed. The seeks to the reversal involuntary manslaughter sig- convictions. The question presented nificant is whether defendant was entitled to an instruction on homicide, MCL 750.324,as the Court of concluded. Because relied on v McIntosh, supra, properly which we believe does not construe MCL750.325,we vacate the Court of involuntary manslaughter of defendant’s convictions and remand the case to that Court for further consid- opinion. persuaded eration in of this We are not *3 questions presented by that defendant in his application except merit further review; therefore, application discussed below, defendant’s is denied. police While intoxicated, defendant fled from a attempting officer who was to effectuate a traffic stop. high speeds, Defendant through fled at at times stop stop sign residential areas, failed to at a and a signal, traffic almost struck two vehicles, and eventu- ally killing occupants. struck another vehicle, its two Defendant was with two counts of second- degree operating murder, MCL750.317;two counts of causing under the influence and death; two counts of first-degree fleeing eluding; operating Mich
Opinion suspended license, second or vehicle with motor subsequent offense. second-degree murder with the
In connection requested charge, instructions involuntary manslaughter homicide, trial court instructed The MCL750.324. manslaughter but refused to as defendant court did because the homicide instruct on supporting that case as not view the evidence defendant of two convicted instruction. involuntary manslaughter than sec- rather counts of ond-degree convicted defen-
murder, and otherwise charged. dant as Appeals agreed lead with defendant’s
The Court appeal denied a fair trial that he was issue on neg- instruct on court’s refusal to because of the trial ligent to be dis- Court found homicide. The manslaugh- positive.1 reversed defendant’s The Court they replaced be and ordered that ter convictions giving convictions, while with prosecutor retrying option defendant on rejected charges. the rest of The Court appeal. claims on II with the construc- we are concerned In this 750.325, which reads: tion of MCL quoted following v McIntosh-. from jurors permitted be are or should “[I]f pursuant vehicle, then, to MCLA ter committed with a motor *4 they permitted 750.325; be MSA also should July per curiam, opinion [Unpublished issued negligent homicide.” 7], 217454), quoting 31, (Docket at 2001 No. People v Weeder of homicide shall be deemed to be The crime every manslaughter charged within crime of to included operation any vehicle, in committed in the of have been any manslaughter where a defendant is with case operation any vehicle, in the shall committed guilty manslaughter, of the crime of find the defendant may guilty a verdict of homicide. it render proper The construction of a statute is issue that People Jones, 301, 304; novo. v 467 Mich we review de construing NW2d 906 Our a statute (2002). goal is effect to the intent of the give “to ascertain 378, 382; 466 Mich Legislature.” Pasha, NW2d 275 If the statute’s is clear and (2002). language Legislature we assume that unambiguous, plain intended its and we enforce the statute meaning Stone, 558, written. statutory In lan- (2001). words, NW2d 702 other when judicial is construction is not guage unambiguous, required permitted Legislature pre- or because the is plainly sumed to have intended the meaning expressed. Id.
III unambiguous. We find MCL 750.325 clear and plainly statute deems the crime of every (MCL 750.324) to be included within crime of manslaughter charged have been any clearly Further, vehicle. the statute unambiguously negli- allows for the conviction any gent homicide case in which a defendant opera- any vehicle. The twice uses the Legislature tion of apply, word for the statute to “charged.” Accordingly, must be com- *5 Mich 493 469 498 Opinion of the Court a vehicle. with the mitted in connection man- with was not however, defendant Here, slaughter. with was Defendant apply in 750.325does that MCL murder. It follows case.2 this is inconsistent our conclusion
To the extent
concluded
case. McIntosh
we overrule that
McIntosh,
jury
given
on
instructions
had been
that because
manslaughter
murder, the
a lesser offense of
negligent homi-
on
have been instructed
should also
McIntosh Court reached
750.325.The
cide under MCL
by concluding
view”
that the “better
this conclusion
MCL750.325“is that
formally pled in
not have to be
a motor vehicle does
charging
for the
murder in order
an information
possible
lesser
homicide as
to consider
and unam-
In
of the clear
offense.”
IV analysis, however. The the end of the This is not in McIntosh will still obtain result reached recognize result reached We that we reach the same 347; (1956), Jordan, overruled in NW2d 873 which was 347 Mich supra.
homicide, inferior, MCL is an or necessarily lesser, included offense of the charged offense of sec- ond-degree murder, necessary and if there is the evi- dentiary support for an instruction on negligent homi- cide. v Cornell,
(2002); 768.32(1). did not reach these issues because it relied on McIntosh. we vacate the Accordingly, of the manslaughter convictions, and we remand this case to that Court for reconsideration of defendant’s *6 in argument opinion of this light principles and the established in If, remand, Cornell.
Appeals concludes that an instruction on negligent homicide was in case, warranted this it must addition- ally consider, pursuant Cornell, to the trial court committed error in requiring failing to give the instruction.3
V The foregoing discussion resolves prosecutor’s cross-appeal. In appeal, addition to that we have con- sidered the issues in appeal. Except defendant’s as discussed below, we conclude that defendant’s argu- ments lack merit for the reasons stated the Court Appeals.
If on remand the Appeals affirms defen- dant’s convictions for manslaughter, must also consider defendant’s challenge to his sentences of years, 15 to 22Vz which the Court did not request The circuit court considered defendant’s for an instruction on negligent homicide, support but determined that the evidence did not appellate such an instruction. We note that an court must find substantial support requested given evidence in of a instruction that was in order supra to reverse. See at 365-366. Dissenting Opinion Cavanagh, J. manslaughter of the of its reversal consider rejected Further, because convictions. argument supplemental new trial for a defendant’s involving (based testi- a witness’s evidence on new part subsequent proceeding), mony civil in a manslaughter convic- it reversed defendant’s because remand if should be reconsidered tions, this issue affirms Court ter convictions.
VI reversing defen- decision The Court vacated, and this convictions is dant’s Court for recon- is remanded matter of defendant’s convictions sideration remaining opinion. with this Defendant’s consistent except affirmed, are convictions and sentences opinion. 7.302(G)(1). MCR otherwise indicated in this C.J., and Weaver, Taylor, Young, Corrigan, Markman, JJ., concurred. (dissenting). would not decide this Cavanagh, *7 opinion per curiam. Because this case
case jurisprudentiaily opportunity to address a offers the prefer significant grant I leave to so issue, might briefing argu- of full that we avail ourselves parties. ment however, aside, would limit
Preferences argument reconsideration necessary to tiary support was the eviden- the issue there homicide instruction. for majority again extends the obiter dictum once from Dissenting Opinion by Cavanagh, J.
(2002). I remain committed to the view that, when
jury may
be instructed on offenses in-
ferior to the
offense if such an instruction is
supported by
the evidence.
Mendoza,
(2003)
Mich 527, 549;
Kelly, J., concurred with Cavanagh,