People v. Maynard

For the reasons expressed in People v Grim, 65 Mich App 143, 145; 237 NW2d 221 (1975), and Judge Allen’s dissent in People v Lutzke, 68 Mich App 75, 82-83; 241 NW2d 765 (1976), (reversed at 399 Mich 870; 251 NW2d 691 [1977], on the basis of People v Crittle, 390 Mich 367; 212 NW2d 196 [1973]), I find the intoxication instruction herein to be erroneous.

I do not believe that the error here can be dismissed as harmless.

Defendant’s testimony was that, because of intoxication, he had no memory of the events in question. This is consistent with two factual theories, either of which would constitute…