The Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions has adopted the following amended model criminal jury instruction, M Crim JI 3.13 (Penalty), in the procedural instructions. The instruction is effective June 1, 2022.
[AMENDED] M Crim JI 3.13
Penalty
Possible penalty should not influence your decision. If you find the defendant guilty, it is the duty of the judge to fix the penalty within the limits provided by law.
History
M Crim JI 3.13 (formerly CJI2d 3.13) was CJI 3:1:19. Amended June 1, 2022.
Reference Guide
Case Law
People v Goad, 421 Mich 20, 364 NW2d 584 (1984); People v Szczytko, 390 Mich 278, 285, 212 NW2d 211 (1973).
The Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions has adopted the following amended model criminal jury instruction, M Crim JI 20.11 (Sexual Act with Mentally Incapable, Mentally Disabled, Mentally Incapacitated, or Physically Helpless Person), eliminating a “knowledge” element not found in the pertinent statutes, MCL 750.520b(1)(h) and MCL 750.520c(1)(h). The amended instruction is effective June 1, 2022.
[AMENDED] M Crim JI 20.11
Sexual Act with Mentally Incapable, Mentally Disabled, Mentally Incapacitated, or Physically Helpless Person by Relative or One in Authority
(1) [Second/Third], that [name complainant] was [mentally incapable/mentally disabled/mentally incapacitated/physically helpless] at the time of the alleged act.
[Choose one or more of (2), (3), (4), or (5):]
(2) Mentally incapable means that [name complainant] was suffering from a mental disease or defect that made [him/her] incapable of appraising either the physical or moral nature of [his/her] conduct.
(3) Mentally disabled means that [name complainant] had a mental illness, was intellectually disabled, or had a developmental disability. “Mental illness” is a substantial disorder of thought or mood that significantly impairs judgment, behavior, or the ability to recognize reality and deal with the ordinary demands of life. “Intellectual disability” means significantly subaverage intellectual functioning that appeared before [name complainant] was eighteen years old and impaired two or more of [his/her] adaptive skills.1 “Developmental disability” means an impairment of general thinking or behavior that originated before the age of eighteen, had continued since it started or can be expected to continue indefinitely, was a substantial burden to [name complainant]’s ability to function in society, and was caused by [intellectual disability as described/cerebral palsy/epilepsy/autism/an impairing condition requiring treatment and services similar to those required for intellectual disability].
(4) Mentally incapacitated means that [name complainant] was [temporarily] unable to understand or control what [he/she] was doing because of [drugs, alcohol or another substance given to (him/her)/something done to (him/her)] without [his/her] consent.
(5) Physically helpless means that [name complainant] was unconscious, asleep, or physically incapable to communicate that [he/she] did not want to take part in the alleged act.
[Choose the appropriate option according to the charge and the evidence:]
(6) [Third/Fourth], that the defendant and [name complainant] were related to each other, either by blood or marriage, as [state relationship, e.g., first cousins].
(6) [Third/Fourth], that at the time of the alleged act the defendant was in a position of authority over [name complainant], and used this authority to coerce [name complainant] to submit to the sexual acts alleged. It is for you to decide whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the defendant was in a position of authority.
Use Note
Use this instruction in conjunction with M Crim JI 20.1, Criminal Sexual Conduct in the First Degree, M Crim JI 20.2, Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Second Degree, or M Crim JI 20.18, Assault with Intent to Commit Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Second Degree (Contact).
- The court may provide the jury with a definition of adaptive skills where appropriate. The phrase is defined in MCL 330.1100a(3), and means skills in one or more of the following areas:
(a) Communication.
(b) Self-care.
(c) Home living.
(d) Social skills.
(e) Community use.
(f) Self-direction.
(g) Health and safety.
(h) Functional academics.
(i) Leisure.
(j) Work.
History
M Crim JI 20.11 (formerly CJI2d 20.11) was CJI 20:2:13; amended September 2005, June 2015, January 2016, June 2022.
Reference Guide
Statutes
MCL 750.520b(1)(g), 767.39.
Case Law
People v Baker, 157 Mich App 613, 403 NW2d 479 (1986); People v Pollard (People v Clark), 140 Mich App 216, 363 NW2d 453 (1985).
The Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions has adopted the following amended model criminal jury instruction, M Crim JI 24.1 (Unlawfully Driving Away an Automobile), to correct the “intent” element in compliance with the statute and case law. The amended instruction is effective June 1, 2022.
[AMENDED] M Crim JI 24.1
Unlawfully Driving Away an Automobile
(1) The defendant is charged with the crime of unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the vehicle belonged to someone else.
(3) Second, that the defendant took possession of the vehicle and [drove/took] it away.
(4) Third, that these acts were both done [without authority/without the owner’s permission].
(5) Fourth, that the defendant intended to take the vehicle without authority, knowing that [he/she] did not have authority to take the vehicle and drive it away. It does not matter whether the defendant intended to keep the vehicle.
[(6) Anyone who assists in taking possession of a vehicle or assists in driving or taking away a vehicle knowing that the vehicle was unlawfully possessed is also guilty of this crime if the assistance was given with the intention of helping another commit this crime.]
Use Note
To distinguish unlawfully taking and using (joyriding) from UDAA, see M Crim JI 24.4.
*This is a specific intent crime.
History
M Crim JI 24.1 (formerly CJI2d 24.1) was CJI 24:1:01, 24:1:02. Amended June 2022.
Reference Guide
Statutes
MCL 750.412, .413.
Case Law
People v Hendricks, 446 Mich 435, 521 NW2d 546 (1994); People v Dutra, 155 Mich App 681, 400 NW2d 619 (1986); People v Harris, 82 Mich App 135, 266 NW2d 477 (1978); People v Shipp, 68 Mich App 452, 243 NW2d 18 (1976); People v Lerma, 66 Mich App 566, 239 NW2d 424 (1976); People v Andrews, 45 Mich App 354, 357, 206 NW2d 517 (1973); People v Davis, 36 Mich App 164, 193 NW2d 393 (1971); People v Snake, 22 Mich App 79, 82, 176 NW2d 726 (1970).
The Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions has adopted the following new model criminal jury instruction, M Crim JI 34.6 (Food Stamp Fraud), for violations of MCL 750.300a. This new instruction is effective June 1, 2022.
[NEW] M Crim JI 34.6
Food Stamp Fraud
(1) The defendant is charged with food stamp fraud. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant [used/transferred/acquired/altered/purchased/possessed/presented for redemption/transported]1 food stamps, coupons, or access devices. Food stamps or coupons means the coupons issued pursuant to the food stamp program established under the Food Stamp Act. An access device means any card, plate, code, account number, or other means of access that can be used, alone or in conjunction with another access device, to obtain payments, allotments, benefits, money, goods, or other things of value or that can be used to initiate a transfer of funds pursuant to the food stamp program.
(3) Second, that the defendant [used/transferred/acquired/altered/purchased/possessed/presented for redemption/transported] food stamps, coupons, or access devices by [specify alleged wrongful conduct2].
(4) Third, that the defendant knew that [he/she] had [specify alleged wrongful conduct] when [he/she] [used/transferred/acquired/altered/purchased/possessed/presented for redemption/transported] the food stamps, coupons, or access devices.
[Use the following where the aggregate value of food stamps allegedly exceeded $250:]
(5) Fourth, that the aggregate value of the food stamps, coupons, or access devices was [more than $250 but less than $1,000/$1,000 or more]. The aggregate value is the total face value of any food stamps or coupons resulting from the alleged [specify alleged wrongful conduct] plus the total value of any access devices. The value of an access device is the total value of the payments, allotments, benefits, money, goods, or other things of value that could be obtained, or the total value of funds that could be transferred by use of the access device at the time of the violation. You may add together the various values of the food stamps, coupons, or access devices [used/transferred/acquired/altered/purchased/possessed/presented for redemption/transported] by the defendant over a period of 12 months when deciding whether the prosecutor has proved the amount required beyond a reasonable doubt.
Use Note
1. The court may read all alternatives or select from the alternatives according to the charges and the evidence.
2. The “alleged wrongful conduct” must specify a violation of the of the Food Stamp Act, 7 USC 2011-2030, or its regulations, or supplemental food programs administered under the Child Nutrition Act, 42 USC 1786, or those regulations. See MCL 750.300a(1).
History
M Crim JI 34.6 was adopted June 1, 2022.
Reference Guide
Statutes
MCL 750.300a.
The Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions has adopted the following new model criminal jury instruction, M Crim JI 35.12 (Cyberbullying/Aggravated Cyberbullying), for violations of MCL 750.411x. This new instruction is effective June 1, 2022.
[NEW] M Crim JI 35.12
Cyberbullying/Aggravated Cyberbullying
(1) The defendant is charged with [cyberbullying/aggravated cyberbullying]. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) First, that the defendant posted a message or statement about or to any other person in a public media forum used to convey information to others, such as the internet.
(3) Second, that the message expressed an intent to commit violence against any other person and was intended to place any person in fear of bodily harm or death.
(4) Third, that the defendant intended to communicate a threat with the message or [he/she] knew that the message would be viewed as a threat. A threat does not have to be stated in any particular terms but must express a warning of danger or harm. Further, it must have been a true threat, and not have been something like idle talk, or a statement made in jest, or a political comment. It must have been made under circumstances where a reasonable person would think that others may take the threat seriously as expressing an intent to inflict harm or damage.
[Use the following only where an aggravating element has been charged:]
(5) Fourth, that the defendant committed two or more separate non-continuous acts of harassing or intimidating behavior on different occasions.
(6) [Fourth/Fifth], that the defendant’s actions in this case caused [(name complainant or other person) to suffer permanent, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of a bodily function/the death of (decedent’s name)].
History
M Crim JI 35.12 was adopted June 1, 2022.
Reference Guide
Statutes
MCL 750.411x.