Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Fennell

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided April 2, 2004No. Docket 241339Published

1DissentWhite, J.

I respectfully dissent. The instruction given failed to convey the essential elements of the offense, and defendant is therefore entitled to a new trial. The statute uses the words “willfully” and “maliciously.” At a minimum, this phrase requires that a defendant either intend to kill, torture, mutilate, maim, or disfigure an animal, or act with a heedless disregard that the prohibited harm is a plain and strong likelihood. The instruction given permitted the jury to convict defendant on a finding that he threw a firecracker in the direction of the bam, knowing that it was wrong to do so,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. People v. CarinesMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  2. United States v. GaudinSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  3. People v. NowackMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  4. People v. MinneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
  5. People v. PetheramMichigan Supreme Court · 1887

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API