Jury instructions; Involuntary manslaughter; Second-degree murder (MCL 750.317); People v Mendoza; “Malice”; Harmless error; People v Cornell

The court held that the trial court did not err by declining to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter, and that even if the instruction should have been given, the omission did not undermine the reliability of the verdict. Defendant became involved in a bar altercation, was pushed toward the exit by a bouncer, pulled a concealed pistol, and during a struggle in the vestibule three shots were fired. One hit the bouncer in the chest and killed him. The trial court instructed on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, self-defense, and accident, but refused defendant’s request for an involuntary manslaughter instruction. The jury convicted him of second-degree murder, among other things. On appeal, the court reiterated that when a defendant is charged with murder, an involuntary manslaughter instruction must be given only “‘if supported by a rational view of the evidence,’” and emphasized that “‘the sole element distinguishing manslaughter and murder is malice.’” The court stated malice includes “‘an intent to create a very high risk of death or great bodily harm with knowledge that death or great bodily harm was the probable result,’” while involuntary manslaughter is “‘the unintentional killing of another, without malice.’” Applying that standard, it concluded no rational juror could find the shooting occurred without malice because defendant “intentionally dramatic[ally] escalat[ed] the altercation by securing his gun in his hand while still inside the bar.” The evidence showed “the gun was in his hand” during the struggle and “the trigger was pulled three times,” with no evidence in the record the bouncer ever possessed the pistol or fired it. The court held those facts established, at minimum, “a volitional act” done “‘in wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of his behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm,’” and did not show “‘a grossly negligent handling of a firearm that inadvertently caused death.’” The court rejected the claim that accident plus a voluntary manslaughter instruction required a involuntary manslaughter instruction, explaining Supreme Court authority requires the rational-view-of-the-evidence test. It added that any assumed error was harmless because the evidence did not “clearly support” the instruction and the jury rejected accident, voluntary manslaughter, and self-defense in returning a second-degree murder verdict. Affirmed.