Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

In <em><a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20150605_S150857_48_01_150857_2015-06-05_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">People v. Burks</a></em>, No. 150857, the Michigan Supreme Court granted oral argument on the application for leave to appeal to decide if it should consider whether the trial court should have instructed the jury on second-degree child abuse, rather than first-degree child abuse alone, where the defense argued the death resulted from reckless conduct.

contentpilot/introduction

Defendant Burks was convicted of felony murder, MCL 750.316, and first-degree child abuse, MCL 750.136b(2), &nbsp;for the death of his six-month-old son. At trial, defendant testified that he had accidentally rolled over on the baby, then given him CPR after the baby had difficulty breathing, then put him in the bath and given him CPR again. He testified that the baby was then breathing normally, he put the baby to bed, and only learned that the baby was dead when defendant awoke in the morning. At trial, the defendant requested a jury instruction on second-degree child abuse, but the trial court denied the request because the defendant admitted that he had intentionally struck the baby while attempting to perform CPR and therefore there was no evidence from which a jury could find that the baby’s death resulted from a reckless act. An intentional act is required for first-degree child abuse, while a reckless act will support a conviction for second-degree child abuse.

core/paragraph

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, held that although the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury regarding second-degree child abuse, that error was harmless because of the other evidence against the defendant, including recent outbursts of anger and the inconsistency of stories told to the police. &nbsp;Judge Markey dissented, arguing that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury regarding second-degree child abuse was not harmless.&nbsp;

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

MSC grants mini-oral argument on whether jury should have been instructed on second-degree child abuse in child death case

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

MSC grants mini-oral argument on whether jury should have been instructed on second-degree child abuse in child death case

professionals