Motion for a new trial; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object; Standalone voluntary manslaughter jury instruction (M Crim JI 16.8) given instead of the lesser included offense instruction (M Crim JI 16.9); People v Yeager

The court held that defendant’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object when the trial court gave an incorrect, standalone voluntary manslaughter jury instruction instead of the lesser included offense instruction. And because it concluded that “a reasonable jury could have convicted defendant of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense[,]” he was entitled to a new trial. Thus, it vacated his second-degree murder conviction and sentence, and remanded for a new trial. The case arose from an altercation between defendant and the victim (K). K came after him “and struck defendant with a chain. In response, defendant kicked [K] in the chest.” K dropped the chain and ran away. Defendant chased him, “engaged in a physical fight, and ultimately stabbed [K] multiple times in the abdomen. Defendant said he chased after [K] because he was ‘pissed’ at [K] for hitting him with the chain.” Another man also fought with defendant. K later died from the stab wounds. While “the trial court agreed to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense, it instead read the instructions for voluntary manslaughter as a standalone offense, M Crim JI 16.8. The instruction defendant requested—and the trial court agreed to give—was the lesser included offense instruction, M Crim JI 16.9[.]” The instructions it gave on “voluntary manslaughter were nearly identical to the instructions for second-degree murder in M Crim JI 16.5. Most importantly, the instructions failed to ‘present to the jury the differing states of mind required for murder and voluntary manslaughter.’ By failing to meaningfully distinguish the two offenses, the trial court erred when it instructed the jury on M Crim JI 16.8.” The court further found that trial “counsel’s admitted failure to recognize and object to this error was not a matter of strategy and constituted deficient performance” that warranted a new trial.