noting this Court's treatment of M.C.L. § 768.32, which permits an instruction on lesser offenses when supported by the evidence
How later courts described this case
- noting this Court's treatment of M.C.L. § 768.32, which permits an instruction on lesser offenses when supported by the evidence
- defining cognate offenses as lesser offenses that "share several elements, and are of the same class or category, but may contain some elements not found in the higher offense.”
- decided December 18, 1975, after the trial herein
- concurring opinion by Williams, J.
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by People v. Cornell, 466 Mich. 335 (2002)
395 Mich 379 (1975), overruled by Cornell, 466 Mich at 357
Overruled by People v. Hawthorne, 474 Mich. 174 (2006)
236 NW2d 461 (1975), overruled by People v Hawthorne, 474 Mich 174
The opinion
Williams, J.
(concurring). I concur with the majority opinion, but would make an additional comment. Since the information here arguably covered the elements of the cognate offense, the following question does not arise in this case, but I believe because of its relevance should be spoken to. I am concerned that the information must give notice of the cognate offense either in the original form or, if amendment is possible, in the amended information. If amendment is allowed, I would further be concerned whether or not there was such surprise that defendant should be entitled to an adjournment or, in an extreme situation, the court might feel that the charge so changed the complexion of the case that the defendant would not have been permitted to fairly develop his case and defend himself and thus would be denied a fair trial.