The Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions has adopted amendments to M Crim JI 16.1 (First-Degree Premeditated Murder), M Crim JI 16.4 (First-Degree Felony Murder), M Crim JI 16.5 (Second Degree Murder), M Crim JI 16.6 (Element Chart First-Degree Premeditated Murder and Second-Degree Murder), M Crim JI 16.7 (Element Chart First-Degree Felony Murder and Second-Degree Murder), M Crim JI 16.8 (Voluntary Manslaughter), M Crim JI 16.10 (Involuntary Manslaughter), M Crim JI 16.11 (Involuntary Manslaughter – Firearm Intentionally Aimed), and M Crim JI 17.3 (Assault with Intent to Murder). The amended instructions remove the language concerning the “without justification or excuse” requirement, which is addressed in the instructions on affirmative defenses. See People v Spears, 346 Mich App 494 (2023). Additionally, M Crim JI 16.8 has been modified for greater consistency with M Crim JI 16.9, and M Crim JI 16.11 has been modified to remove duplicative language and to reflect statutory involuntary manslaughter’s status as a cognate lesser included offense of murder, see MCL 750.329; People v Smith, 478 Mich 64 (2007). The amended instructions are effective June 1, 2026.

PROPOSED

The Committee proposes a new instruction, M Crim JI 32.4 (Malicious Destruction of Trees or Plants), to address the crime set forth in MCL 750.382. This instruction is entirely new.

[NEW] M Crim JI 32.4

Malicious Destruction of Trees or Plants

(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of malicious destruction of trees or plants. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that there [was / was a / were] [tree(s) / shrub(s) / grass / turf / plant(s) / crop(s) / soil] [standing / growing / located] on land or property that did not belong to the defendant.

(3) Second, that the defendant [cut down / destroyed / damaged] the [tree(s) / shrub(s) / grass / turf / plant(s) / crop(s) / soil] [standing / growing / located] on that land or property without permission of the owner or possessor of the land or property.

(4) Third, that the defendant did this knowing that it was wrong, [without just cause or excuse,]¹ and with the intent to damage or destroy the [tree(s) / shrub(s) / grass / turf / plant(s) / crop(s) / soil].²

(5) Fourth, that the extent of the damage was³

[Choose only one of the following unless instructing on lesser offenses:]

(a) $20,000 or more.
(b) $1,000 or more, but less than $20,000.
(c) $200 or more, but less than $1,000.
(d) some amount less than $200.

[Use the following paragraph only if applicable:]

(6) You may add together damages caused in separate incidents if part of a scheme or course of conduct within a 12-month period when deciding whether the prosecutor has proved the amount required beyond a reasonable doubt.]

Use Notes

1. Use only where evidence supports a legally recognized defense that the destruction was done with just cause or is legally excused.
2. This is a specific intent crime.
3. M Crim JI 32.1, Fair Market Value Test—Malicious Destruction of Property, should be given when applicable.

The Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions solicits comment on the following proposal by May 1, 2026. Comments may be sent in writing to Christopher M. Smith, Reporter, Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions, Michigan Hall of Justice, P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909-7604, or electronically to MCrimJI@courts.mi.gov.

PROPOSED

The Committee proposes four new instructions on rioting offenses. M Crim JI 40.9 (Riot) addresses the crime set forth in MCL 752.541. M Crim JI 40.10 (Incitement to Riot) addresses the crime set forth in MCL 752.542. M Crim JI 40.10a (Incitement to Riot at Correctional Facility) addresses the crime set forth in MCL 752.542a. M Crim JI 40.11 (Unlawful Assembly) addresses the crime set forth in MCL 752.543. These instructions are entirely new.

[NEW] M Crim JI 40.9

Riot

(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of riot. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that the defendant and four or more other people acted together and with a common purpose to engage in violent conduct.

(3) Second, that when the defendant engaged in violent conduct, [he / she] either intended to place a segment of the public in fear of personal injury or property loss or consciously disregarded a serious risk that [his / her] conduct would place a segment of the public in fear of personal injury or property loss.¹

(4) It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant personally committed any acts of violence. It is sufficient if the defendant acted in concert with others in furtherance of the group’s wrongful and violent conduct. You may consider a defendant’s presence and conduct at the scene, along with other evidence, to determine whether the defendant shared the common purpose of the group or intended to advance its purpose.²

Use Notes

1. MCL 752.541 requires proof that the defendant “wrongfully engage[d] in violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly cause[d] or create[d] a serious risk of causing public terror or alarm.” The court of appeals has held that a defendant causes “public terror or alarm” whenever “‘a segment of the public is put in fear of injury either to their persons or their property.’” People v Kim, 245 Mich App 609, 615; 630 NW2d 627 (2001) (quoting People v Garcia, 31 Mich App 447, 456; 187 NW2d 711 (1971)).
2. See Garcia, 31 Mich App at 453-454.

[NEW] M Crim JI 40.10

Inciting a Riot

(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of inciting a riot. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that the defendant committed one or more of the following acts or urged or encouraged other persons to commit such acts:

[Select from the following according to the charges and evidence:]

(a) an act of unlawful force or violence [or]
(b) the unlawful burning or destruction of property [or]
(c) unlawful interference with a [police officer / peace officer / firefighter / member of the Michigan national guard / member of the armed services]¹

(1) Second, that, by engaging in such conduct, the defendant intended to start or continue a riot.

A riot occurs when five or more persons act together to wrongfully engage in violent conduct with the intent to place a segment of the public in fear of personal injury or property loss or in conscious disregard of a serious risk that a segment of the public would be placed in fear of personal injury or property loss.

Use Note

1. Include any of the bracketed terms that may apply according to the charges and the evidence.

[NEW] M Crim JI 40.10a

Causing or Conspiring to Cause a Riot in a State Correctional Facility

(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of causing or conspiring to cause a riot in a state correctional facility. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that the defendant [provoked / caused / attempted to cause / assisted in causing / conspired to cause]¹ a riot at [identify state correctional facility], a state correctional facility in Michigan.

(3) A riot means three or more persons acting together to intentionally or recklessly engage in violent conduct in a state correctional facility that threatens the security of that facility or threatens the safety or authority of persons responsible for maintaining the security of the state correctional facility.

(4) Second, that the defendant did so on purpose, intending to cause a riot at [identify state correctional facility].

Use Note

1. Include any of the bracketed terms that may apply according to the charges and the evidence.

[NEW] M Crim JI 40.11

Unlawful Assembly

(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of unlawful assembly. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that the defendant gathered with four or more other persons or acted together with four or more other persons at [provide location].

(3) Second, that the defendant gathered or acted together with others there to engage in a riot or that the defendant was present or acting with four or more other persons when or after a riot developed and intended to help the riot to continue.

A riot occurs when five or more persons act together to wrongfully engage in violent conduct with the intent to place a segment of the public in fear of personal injury or property loss or in conscious disregard of a serious risk that a segment of the public would be placed in fear of personal injury or property loss.

The Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions solicits comment on the following proposal by May 1, 2026. Comments may be sent in writing to Christopher M. Smith, Reporter, Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions, Michigan Hall of Justice, P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909-7604, or electronically to MCrimJI@courts.mi.gov.

PROPOSED

The Committee proposes three new instructions on election-related crimes. M Crim JI 43.5 (Election Official Destroying, Falsifying, or Removing Ballots or Election Records) addresses the crime set forth in MCL 168.932(c). M Crim JI 43.6 (Disclosing Elector’s Vote) and M Crim JI 43.6a (Obstructing an Elector While Attempting to Vote) address the crimes set forth in MCL 168.932(d). These instructions are entirely new.

[NEW] M Crim JI 43.5

Election Official Destroying, Falsifying, or Removing Ballots or Election Records

(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of destroying, falsifying, or removing ballots or election records. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that the defendant was [a / an / the] [identify election official position]¹ for [identify political entity] for the [primary / general / special] election of [provide election date].

(3) Second, that the defendant had custody of the [ballots / (describe election documents alleged)]² for that election.

(4) Third, that the defendant [destroyed / mutilated / defaced / falsified / removed / hid / altered / erased] all or part of the [ballots / (describe election documents alleged)] or allowed another person to do so.

(5) Fourth, that when the defendant [destroyed / mutilated / defaced / falsified / removed / hid / altered / erased] all or part of the [ballots / (describe election documents alleged)] or allowed another person to do so, [he / she] did so willfully [and with the intent to cheat or deceive]³ rather than by accident or mistake.

Use Notes

1. MCL 168.932(c) describes several election officials: “An inspector of election, clerk, or other officer or person having custody.” Whether the alleged office or position fits within that statutory wording appears to be a question of law for the trial court to resolve. Whether the defendant held that office or position at the time alleged is the question of fact for the jury.
2. MCL 168.932(c) lists several kinds of election documents: “any record, election list of voters, affidavit, return, statement of votes, certificates, poll book, or . . . any paper, document, or vote of any description, which pursuant to this act is directed to be made, filed, or preserved.” Whether an election document fits within this wording appears to be a question of law for the trial court. Whether the defendant had custody over that document and destroyed, damaged, falsified, or removed it at the time alleged are the questions of fact for the jury.
3. Only some of the acts prohibited by MCL 168.932(c) require an intent to defraud. Accordingly, the bracketed language requiring an intent to cheat or deceive should be read only when it is alleged that the defendant or someone else “fraudulently remove[d] or secrete[d]” election documents or “fraudulently ma[d]e any entry, erasure, or alteration.” See MCL 168.932(c). For purposes of this statute, the term fraudulently means “the specific intent to cheat or deceive.” People v Hawkins, 340 Mich App 155, 175-176; 985 NW2d 853 (2022) (quoting People v Miller, 326 Mich App 719, 739; 929 NW2d 821 (2019)).

[NEW] M Crim JI 43.6

Disclosing Elector’s Vote

(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of disclosing an elector’s vote. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that [name targeted elector] was an elector¹ who had a right to vote in [identify location where the targeted elector would be voting]² in the [date of election] election. To be qualified as an elector, a person must be a citizen of the United States, at least 18 years of age, a resident of the state of Michigan for at least 6 months, and a resident of [identify location where the targeted elector would be voting] for at least 30 days.³

(3) Second, that [name elector] filled out a ballot to vote in [identify location where the targeted elector voted]2 in the [date of election] election.

(4) Third, that the defendant saw [name targeted elector]’s ballot.

(5) Fourth, that the defendant told another person who [name targeted elector] voted for or how [name targeted elector] voted on a ballot question.

Use Notes

1. In MCL 168.10 of the Michigan Election Law Act, the phrase qualified elector means “a person who possesses the qualifications of an elector as prescribed in section 1 of article II of the state constitution of 1963 and who has resided in the city or township 30 days.” Mich Const 1963 art 2, §1, defines elector as “[e]very citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 21 years, who has resided in this state six months, and who meets the requirements of local residence provided by law.” US Const amend XXVI, §1, provides, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
2. E.g., “the City of Detroit” or “Ada Township.”
3. Add any other requirements of local residence provided by law per Mich Const 1963 art 2, §1, if there are any such requirements.

[NEW] M Crim JI 43.6a

Obstructing an Elector While Attempting to Vote

(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of obstructing an elector while attempting to vote. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that [name targeted elector] was an elector¹ who had a right to vote in [identify location where the targeted elector would be voting]² in the [date of election] election. To be qualified as an elector, a person must be a citizen of the United States, at least 18 years of age, a resident of the state of Michigan for at least 6 months, and a resident of [identify location where the targeted elector would be voting] for at least 30 days.³

(3) Second, that the defendant [obstructed / tried to obstruct] [name targeted elector] from voting or attempting to vote by [describe alleged obstructive conduct].

Use Notes

1. In MCL 168.10 of the Michigan Election Law Act, the phrase qualified elector means “a person who possesses the qualifications of an elector as prescribed in section 1 of article II of the state constitution of 1963 and who has resided in the city or township 30 days.” Mich Const 1963 art 2, §1, defines elector as “[e]very citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 21 years, who has resided in this state six months, and who meets the requirements of local residence provided by law.” US Const amend XXVI, §1, provides, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
2. E.g., “the City of Detroit” or “Ada Township.”
3. Add any other requirements of local residence provided by law per Mich Const 1963 art 2, §1, if there are any such requirements.

[AMENDED] M Crim JI 16.1

First-Degree Premeditated Murder

(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of first-degree premeditated murder.¹ To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that the defendant caused the death of [name deceased], that is, that [name deceased] died as a result of [state alleged act causing death].²

(3) Second, that the defendant intended to kill [name deceased].³

(4) Third, that this intent to kill was premeditated, that is, thought out beforehand.

(5) Fourth, that the killing was deliberate, which means that the defendant considered the pros and cons of the killing and thought about and chose [his / her] actions before [he / she] did it. There must have been real and substantial reflection for long enough to give a reasonable person a chance to think twice about the intent to kill. The law does not say how much time is needed. It is for you to decide if enough time passed under the circumstances of this case. The killing cannot be the result of a sudden impulse without thought or reflection.

Use Notes

1. Second-degree murder is a lesser included offense of first-degree murder and should be instructed upon if supported by the evidence. People v Cornell, 466 Mich 335, 358 n13; 646 NW2d 127 (2002). Use M Crim JI 16.5 for this purpose. Manslaughter is also a lesser included offense of murder and should be instructed upon if supported by the evidence. People v Mendoza, 468 Mich 527; 664 NW2d 685 (2003). See M Crim JI 16.9 and 16.10. In lying-in-wait or poisoning cases, use M Crim JI 16.2 or 16.3, respectively. The Time and Place (Venue) instruction can be found at M Crim JI 3.10.
2. Where causation is an issue, see the special causation instructions, M Crim JI 16.15-16.23.
3. This is a specific intent crime.

[AMENDED] M Crim JI 16.4

First-Degree Felony Murder

(1) The defendant is charged with first-degree felony murder. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that the defendant caused the death of [name deceased], that is, that [name deceased] died as a result of [state alleged act causing death].

(3) Second, that the defendant had one of these three states of mind: [he / she] intended to kill, or [he / she] intended to do great

bodily harm to [name deceased], or [he / she] knowingly created a very high risk of death or great bodily harm knowing that death or such harm would be the likely result of [his / her] actions.

(4) Third, that when [he / she] did the act that caused the death of [name deceased], the defendant was committing [(or) attempting to commit / (or) helping someone else commit] the crime of [state felony]. For the crime of [state felony], the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: [state elements of felony].

[Use (5) or (6) where factually appropriate:]

(5) To establish an attempt, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to commit the crime of [state felony] and that [he / she] took some action toward committing that crime but failed to complete it. It is not enough to prove that the defendant made preparations for committing the crime. Things like planning the crime or arranging how it will be committed are just preparations; they do not qualify as an attempt. In order to qualify as an attempt, the action must go beyond mere preparation, to the point where the crime would have been completed if it had not been interrupted by outside circumstances. To qualify as an attempt, the act must clearly and directly be related to the crime of [state felony] and not some other objective.

(6) The defendant must have been either committing or helping someone else commit the crime of [state felony]. To help means to perform acts or give encouragement, before or during the commission of the crime, that aids or assists in its commission. At the time of giving aid or encouragement, the defendant must have intended the commission of the [state felony].

[AMENDED] M Crim JI 16.5

Second-Degree Murder

(1) [The defendant is charged with the crime of / You may also consider the lesser charge of] second-degree murder.¹ To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that the defendant caused the death of [name deceased], that is, that [name deceased] died as a result of [state alleged act causing death].²

(3) Second, that the defendant had one of these three states of mind: [he / she] intended to kill, or [he / she] intended to do great bodily harm to [name deceased], or [he / she] knowingly created a very high risk of death or great bodily harm knowing that death or such harm would be the likely result of [his / her] actions.³

Use Notes

(1) Where there is a question as to venue, insert M Crim JI 3.10, Time and Place (Venue).
(2) Where causation is an issue, see the special causation instructions, M Crim JI 16.15-16.23.
(3) Second-degree murder is not a specific intent crime. People v Langworthy, 416 Mich 630; 331 NW2d 171 (1982).

[AMENDED] M Crim JI 16.6 Element Chart—

First-Degree Premeditated and Second-Degree Murder

 

Use Note

This chart may be distributed to jurors when first-degree premeditated and second-degree murder are the only potential verdicts, or when jurors request further clarification of the differences between the two offenses. To avoid undue reliance on the charts, the committee recommends that they only be distributed when written copies of all instructions are also distributed to jurors. This chart is intended for the supplemental guidance of the jury, rather than as a substitute for the comprehensive murder definitions contained in M Crim JI 16.1, 16.4, and 16.5.

[AMENDED] M Crim JI 16.7 Element Chart—

First-Degree Felony and Second-Degree Murder

 

Use Note

This chart may be distributed to jurors when first-degree felony and second-degree murder are the only potential verdicts, or when jurors request further clarification of the differences between the two offenses. To avoid undue reliance on the charts, the committee recommends that they only be distributed when written copies of all instructions are also distributed to jurors. This chart is intended for the supplemental guidance of the jury, rather than as a substitute for the comprehensive murder definitions contained in M Crim JI 16.1, 16.4, and 16.5.

[AMENDED] M Crim JI 16.8

Voluntary Manslaughter

(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of voluntary manslaughter.¹ To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that the defendant caused the death of [name deceased], that is, that [name deceased] died as a result of [state alleged act causing death].

(3) Second, that the defendant had one of these three states of mind: [he / she] intended to kill, or [he / she] intended to do great bodily harm to [name deceased], or [he / she] knowingly created a very high risk of death or great bodily harm knowing that death or such harm would be the likely result of [his / her] actions.

Use Note

1. If instructions on voluntary manslaughter are being given as a lesser offense to murder, use M Crim JI 16.9.

[AMENDED] M Crim JI 16.10

Involuntary Manslaughter

(1) [The defendant is charged with the crime of / You may also consider the lesser charge of] involuntary manslaughter. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that the defendant caused the death of [name deceased], that is, that [name deceased] died as a result of [state alleged act causing death].

[Use (3) when gross negligence is alleged:]

(3) Second, in doing the act that caused [name deceased]’s death, the defendant acted in a grossly negligent manner.¹

[Use (4) when the act requires an intent to injure:]²

(4) Second, in doing the act that caused [name deceased]’s death, the defendant intended³ to injure [name deceased]. The act charged in this case is assault and battery. The prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that the defendant committed a battery on [name deceased]. A battery is a forceful or violent touching of the person or something closely

connected with the person. The touching must have been intended by the defendant, that is, not accidental, and it must have been against [name deceased]’s will. Second, that the defendant intended to injure [name deceased].

Use Notes

1. For a definition of gross negligence, see M Crim JI 16.18.
2. An unlawful act that is committed with the intent to injure is not limited to an assault and battery. The applicable elements of that offense are set forth in this instruction because assault and battery is the most common type of unlawful act needed to support a charge of involuntary manslaughter.
3. This is a specific intent variant of the crime.

[AMENDED] M Crim JI 16.11

Involuntary Manslaughter-Firearm Intentionally Aimed

(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of involuntary manslaughter. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that the defendant caused the death of [name deceased].

(3) Second, that death resulted from the discharge of a firearm.¹

(4) Third, at the time the firearm discharged, the defendant was intentionally aiming or pointing it at [name deceased].

Use Note

1. Firearm is defined in MCL 750.222(e) as “any weapon which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by action of an explosive.”

[AMENDED] M Crim JI 17.3

Assault with Intent to Murder

(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of assault with intent to murder. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2) First, that the defendant tried to physically injure another person.

(3) Second, that when the defendant committed the assault, [he / she] had the ability to cause an injury, or at least believed that [he / she] had the ability.

(4) Third, that the defendant intended¹ to kill the person [he / she] assaulted.²

Use Notes

1. This is a specific intent crime.
2. Where appropriate, give special instructions on particular defenses (see chapter 7), on mitigation (M Crim JI 17.4), and transferred intent (M Crim JI 17.17).

The Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions has adopted amendments to M Crim JI 3.17 (Single Defendant-Single Count), M Crim JI 3.18 (Multiple Defendants-Single Count), M Crim JI 3.20 (Single Defendant-Multiple Counts-More Than One Wrongful Act), and M Crim JI 3.22 (Multiple Defendants-Multiple Counts-More Than One Wrongful Act). The purpose of these amendments is to present the possible verdicts in a consistent sequence, with the “not guilty” option appearing first. The amended instructions are effective June 1, 2026.

[AMENDED] M Crim JI 3.17

Single Defendant-Single Count

You may return a verdict of not guilty or guilty of the alleged crime [, or guilty of a less serious crime].

[AMENDED] M Crim JI 3.18

Multiple Defendants-Single Count

You must return a separate verdict for each defendant. This means that, for each individual defendant, you may return a verdict of not guilty or guilty of the alleged crime [, or guilty of a less serious crime].

[AMENDED] M Crim JI 3.20

Single Defendant-Multiple Counts-More Than One Wrongful Act

(1) The defendant is charged with ___ counts, that is, with the crimes of _______________ and _____________. These are separate crimes, and the prosecutor is charging that the defendant committed [both / all] of them. You must consider each crime separately in light of all the evidence in the case.

(2) You may find the defendant not guilty or guilty of all or [any one / any combination] of these crimes [, or guilty of a less serious crime].

[AMENDED] M Crim JI 3.22

Multiple Defendants-Multiple Counts-More Than One Wrongful Act

(1) The defendants are each charged with ___ counts, that is, with the crimes of _________________ and _________________. These are separate crimes, and the prosecutor is charging that each defendant committed [both / all] of them. You must consider each crime separately in light of all the evidence.

(2) You must return a separate verdict for each defendant. For each defendant, you may return a verdict of not guilty or guilty of one or more of the alleged crimes [, or guilty of a less serious crime]. Remember that you must consider each defendant separately.

The Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions has adopted a new preliminary instruction, M Crim JI 1.10 (Referring to Jurors by Number), that directs jurors not to draw any inferences from the use of juror numbers in lieu of names. The new instruction is effective June 1, 2026.

[NEW] M Crim JI 1.10

Referring to Jurors by Number

During jury selection and throughout trial, the lawyers and I will refer to you by number rather than by name. The use of juror numbers is for administrative purposes only. You must not allow this procedure to influence your decision in any way. Your decision must be based solely on the evidence presented.