PEOPLE OF MI V BRUCE PARRY REAM
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 28, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 206604
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 96-001000-FC
BRUCE PARRY REAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and J. B. Sullivan*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from his jury trial conviction of first-degree criminal sexual
conduct, MCL 750.520b(1)(a); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(a). Defendant was sentenced to 96 to 240
months’ imprisonment. We affirm.
Defendant first argues that the trial court committed error requiring reversal because it failed to
sua sponte give a nonstandard jury instruction, the so-called “Lord Hale” instruction,1 to the jury.
Defendant did not raise the issue at trial by requesting such an instruction or by objecting to the trial
court’s instructions on that basis. Appellate review is therefore foreclosed absent manifest injustice.
MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052; People v VanDorsten, 441 Mich 540, 544-545; 494 NW2d 737
(1993); People v Rice (On Remand), 235 Mich App 429, 443; 597 NW2d 843 (1999).
Because the nonstandard “Lord Hale” instruction has been neither adopted nor otherwise
recognized in the State of Michigan, the trial court did not err in failing to sua sponte give this instruction.
We further note that, reviewing the jury instructions in their entirety, the jury was otherwise adequately
instructed using the standard jury instructions of this state. The instructions fairly presented the issues to
be tried and sufficiently protected defendant’s rights. People v Perez-DeLeon, 224 Mich App 43, 53;
568 NW2d 324 (1998). We therefore find no manifest injustice under the circumstances.
VanDorsten, supra.
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
In a related argument, defendant contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request
the “Lord Hale” instruction. However, in light of our conclusion that the instruction does
-2
not reflect the law of this state, defendant has not shown that his counsel’s performance was
unreasonable under prevailing professional norms or that he was prejudiced. People v Pickens, 446
Mich 298, 302-303, 312; 521 NW2d 797 (1994). Defendant has therefore not overcome the strong
presumption of effective assistance of counsel. People v Leonard, 224 Mich App 569, 592; 569
NW2d 663 (1997).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Joseph B. Sullivan
1
The “Lord Hale” instruction is an instruction that charges of sexual assault are easily made and difficult
to defend against. See People v Jordan, 23 Mich App 375, 385, n 10; 178 NW2d 659 (1970).
-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.
