PEOPLE OF MI V WILLIAM PAUL COWAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 2, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 208935
Jackson Circuit Court
LC No. 97-081679 FC
BRADLEY JAMES WESTBROOK,
Defendant-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 208975
Jackson Circuit Court
LC No. 97-081678 FC
WILLIAM PAUL COWAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Markey, JJ.
TALBOT, J., (concurring).
I concur in the result reached by the majority but write separately to urge our Supreme Court’s
reconsideration of the analysis of lesser included offenses established in People v Ora Jones, 395 Mich
379; 236 NW2d 461 (1975).
The case against defendant Bradley James Westbrook presents a particularly clear example of
just how absurd the rule in Ora Jones and its progeny can be. Counsel for defendant Westbrook
specifically acknowledged at trial that an armed robbery had occurred, but denied that defendant
Westbrook was involved. There was no evidence presented at trial to support a finding that anything
less than a completed armed robbery was at issue. Nevertheless, at the close of proofs, defendant
requested an instruction of the offense of assault with intent to rob while armed. The trial court refused
-1
to give the instruction because the evidence did not support it. And now this Court is required to find
the trial court’s decision was error, albeit harmless, because assault with intent to rob while armed is in
theory a necessarily included lesser offense of armed robbery.
In a case such as this, where defendant denies any involvement in an undisputed crime, requiring
instruction on a lesser offense that is contrary to all the evidence flies in the face of common sense. It
defies logic to require instruction on an inchoate robbery where defendant himself acknowledges that a
completed robbery occurred and where he unambiguously asserts that he played no part in it.
I invite our Supreme Court to show its confidence in the ability of trial judges to “exercise sound
discretion in determining which defense theories can be rationally supported by the evidence fairly set
forth at trial.” People v Perry, 470 Mich 55, 70; ___ NW2d ___ (1999)(Brickley, J., dissenting).
The fictional analysis of lesser included offenses that has developed since Ora Jones, supra, insults the
trial judge, creates an arbitrary series of hoops for trial lawyers, and interferes with the jury’s ability to
reach a true verdict. I urge our Supreme Court to definitively overrule Ora Jones and vest the
discretion for jury instruction decisions in the trial court where it belongs.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
