PEOPLE OF MI V RICHARD C JARRETT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 9, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 207193
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 96-001687
RICHARD C. JARRETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Gage and Zahra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was initially charged with two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, MCL
750.316(1)(a); MSA 28.548(1)(a), and one count of felony-firearm. MCL 750.227b; MSA
28.424(2). After the defense rested, the trial court granted defendant a directed verdict of acquittal on
the two first-degree murder charges, but permitted the case to proceed to the jury on two counts of
second-degree murder. MCL 750.317; MSA 28.549. The jury found defendant guilty of the felony
firearm charge, acquitted defendant of one count of second-degree murder, and could not reach a
verdict regarding the other count of second-degree murder. Defendant was subsequently retried on one
count of second-degree murder, after which this second jury also failed to reach a verdict. The trial
court then dismissed the remaining second-degree murder charge on the basis that a third trial would
violate defendant’s due process rights. Defendant now appeals as of right from his felony-firearm
conviction, for which the trial court imposed the mandatory term of two years’ imprisonment. We
affirm.
Defendant first suggests that when the trial court directed a verdict of acquittal on the first
degree murder charges, it should have dismissed the case against him altogether. Defendant contends
the trial court erroneously submitted the second-degree murder charges to the jury. This issue presents
a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo. People v Sierb, 456 Mich 519, 522; 581 NW2d
219 (1998).
The trial court properly permitted the two counts of second-degree murder to proceed to the
jury.
-1
[U]pon an indictment for an offense, consisting of different degrees, as
prescribed in this chapter, the jury, or the judge in a trial without a jury, may find the
accused not guilty of the offense in the degree charged in the indictment and may find
the accused person guilty of a degree of that offense inferior to that charged in the
indictment, or of an attempt to commit that offense. [MCL 768.32(1); MSA
28.1055(1).]
MCL 768.32; MSA 28.1055 thus allows for punishment of an offense of different degrees whenever
the charge for the higher offense includes a charge for the lesser. People v Chamblis, 395 Mich 408,
415-416; 236 NW2d 473 (1975). Every charge of first-degree murder necessarily includes the lesser
offense of second-degree murder. People v Jenkins, 395 Mich 440, 442; 236 NW2d 503 (1975).
Accordingly, defendant’s first-degree murder charges necessarily included charges of second-degree
murder, and therefore the trial court did not err in submitting second-degree murder charges to the jury
after directing a verdict of acquittal on the first-degree murder charges.
Defendant next argues that his conviction of felony-firearm should be reversed because he was
not convicted of an underlying felony. However, the Supreme Court has held that a conviction of
felony-firearm may stand where the jury has acquitted defendant of the underlying felony. People v
Lewis, 415 Mich 443, 453-454; 330 NW2d 16 (1982).
Defendant also alleges that the jury must have believed defendant’s self-defense theory when it
acquitted defendant of one count of second-degree murder and then failed to reach a decision with
regard to the remaining second-degree murder charge. Therefore, defendant reasons, his felony-firearm
conviction should be reversed because the evidence did not establish that he committed a felony.
However, defendant’s argument calls for speculation, and this Court will not speculate regarding a jury’s
conclusions. People v Garcia, 448 Mich 442, 460-461 n 25; 531 NW2d 683 (1995). Moreover,
juries are not held to any rules of logic and possess the capacity for leniency. People v Burgess, 419
Mich 305, 310; 353 NW2d 444 (1984). Accordingly, this Court will not reverse defendant’s felony
firearm conviction.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-2
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.