PEOPLE OF MI V CLIFFORD JAMES MCCLAIN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 29, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 186966
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 94-006797
CLIFFORD JAMES MCCLAIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Young, P.J., and Taylor and R.C. Livo,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from his bench trial convictions for involuntary manslaughter,
MCL 750.321; MSA 28.553, and assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, MCL
750.84; MSA 28.279. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of three to fifteen years of
imprisonment for the involuntary manslaughter conviction, and to three to ten years of imprisonment for
the assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder conviction. We affirm.
First, defendant argues that the information was insufficient because it did not fully apprise him
of the charge of involuntary manslaughter, and thereby allow him to prepare the appropriate defense,
particularly where the information charged manslaughter, but defendant was convicted of involuntary
manslaughter. We disagree.
Because defendant failed to challenge the sufficiency of the information in the lower court, he
waived the issue for appellate review absent manifest injustice. People v Weatherholt, 209 Mich App
801, 804; 533 NW2d 24 (1995) (citing People v Covington, 132 Mich App 79, 86-87; 346 NW2d
903 (1994)). We conclude that no such injustice would result from this Court’s failure to review. The
information, charging statutory manslaughter, adequately apprised defendant that he could be convicted
of involuntary manslaughter, 1 and defendant’s assertion of the accident defense evidences his awareness
and understanding of the charge against him.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Next, defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence produced at trial to support his
convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.
Involuntary manslaughter has been defined as “[a]n unlawful act committed with the intent to
injure or in a grossly negligent manner that proximately causes death.” People v Datema, 448 Mich
585, 606; 533 NW2d 272 (1995). In viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, we find that evidence of defendant’s actions of procuring a gun and firing it in a room
where four other people were present, while in the midst of a heated argument, which resulted in the
death of one of the people present rose to the level of gross negligence in that it clearly placed the safety
of others at risk. People v Hutner, 209 Mich App 280, 282; 530 NW2d 174 (1995); Datema,
supra, p 606.
In order to sustain a conviction for assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder,
the prosecutor must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) an attempt or offer of
force or violence to do corporeal hurt to another (an assault), 2) coupled with an intent to do great
bodily harm less than murder. People v Lugo, 214 Mich App 699, 710; 542 NW2d 921 (1995). In
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that, where the evidence
indicates that defendant knowingly procured the gun and shot it during a heated argument with one of
the victims, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that defendant intended to do great bodily harm.
Hutner, supra, p 282; Lugo, supra, pp 710-711.
Finally, defendant argues that the trial court’s findings of fact were insufficient to support his
convictions because the court did not explicitly address defendant’s defense of accident. We disagree.
In rendering its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court stated that testimony of
defendant’s actions of procuring the gun and firing it in a crowded room was sufficient for the court to
conclude that defendant did so knowing that the possibility that someone would be hurt existed.
Therefore, by virtue of this finding, we conclude that the court implicitly declined to accept defendant’s
defense of accident. Accordingly, the trial court’s findings were sufficient because they establish that the
court was aware of the issues in the case and correctly applied the law. MCR 2.517(A)(2). People v
Smith, 211 Mich App 233, 235; 535 NW2d 248 (1995).
Affirmed.
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
/s/ Clifford W. Taylor
/s/ Robert C. Livo
1
The statute, MCL 750.321; MSA 28.553, does not specify grades or degrees of manslaughter, nor
does it provide a definition of the offense. People v Knott, 59 Mich App 105, 114; 228 NW2d 838
(1975). Because the evidence required to establish voluntary manslaughter can also establish the
involuntary manslaughter, a charge of manslaughter is adequate to place a defendant on notice that he
-2
could be convicted of involuntary manslaughter. See People v Barnwell, 60 Mich App 291, 297-298;
230 NW2d 400 (1975).
-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
