From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Walker

Supreme Court of Michigan
Nov 2, 1999
461 Mich. 908 (Mich. 1999)

Opinion

No. 113156.

November 2, 1999.


On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the September 8, 1998, decision of the Court of Appeals, is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. In this case, the trial court dismissed the felony-firearm charge while convicting the defendant of malicious destruction of property, which destruction was the product of a firearm discharge. Thus, the verdict rendered was patently inconsistent. Moreover, the trial court gave no explanation for its dismissal of the felony-firearm charge. We have previously held that a trial judge sitting as the trier of fact may not enter an inconsistent verdict. While juries are not held to rules of logic, or required to explain their decisions, a judge sitting without a jury is not afforded the same lenience. People v Vaughn, 409 Mich. 463; 295 N.W.2d 354 (1980). Moreover, because of double jeopardy principles, the error of the trial court in dismissing a claim and rendering an inconsistent verdict cannot be corrected on appeal.

Court of Appeals No. 195596.


Summaries of

People v. Walker

Supreme Court of Michigan
Nov 2, 1999
461 Mich. 908 (Mich. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Walker

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALONZO WALKER…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Nov 2, 1999

Citations

461 Mich. 908 (Mich. 1999)
603 N.W.2d 784

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

While juries may render inconsistent or illogical verdicts, "a trial judge sitting as the trier of fact may…

People v. Owens

A jury may render an inconsistent verdict; however, a trial court, acting as the fact finder in a bench…