Following Cole, Alaska Supreme Court viewed problem of requisite instruction as a "judicial choice.”
How later courts described this case
- Following Cole, Alaska Supreme Court viewed problem of requisite instruction as a "judicial choice.”
- "the purpose of the voir dire examination is to enable the attor neys to elicit such information as to develop a rational basis for the exercise of challenges for cause or peremptory challenges”
- "the purpose of the voir dire examination is to enable the attor *587 neys to elicit such information as to develop a rational basis for the exercise of challenges for cause or peremptory challenges”
- "This appeal makes it mandatory that this Court choose between ...”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Kelly, J.
(concurring in reversal and remand for new trial). The question presented on this appeal is: “Was there sufficient evidence before the jury for it to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?”
Justice T. M. Kavanagh raises, for the first time, the question as to the admissibility of the lay witnesses’ testimony.
The people did not claim their State’s witnesses had expressed opinion in regard to defendant’s sanity, but relied upon what my Brother describes as “their personal observations of defendant.”
Justice T. M. Kavanagh’s able summation proves beyond doubt the people’s failure to prove defendant sane when he committed what was aptly described by the Court of Appeals * as a “senseless homicide.”
My agreement with Justice T. M. Kavanagh on issue number one is based on the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence and not on his conclusion that reversible error was committed by the introduction of improper opinion evidence — an issue not specifically raised on appeal.
I agree with Justice T. M. Kavanagh’s opinion on issue number two in re instruction as to consequence *722 of returning a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
People v. Cole (1967), 8 Mich App 250 . Appeal granted 380 Mich 757 .