PEOPLE OF MI V STANLEY DAVIDSON JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 11, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 204447
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 96-000370-FC
STANLEY DAVIDSON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and McDonald, JJ
Wilder, P.J., (dissenting)
I must respectfully dissent. I agree with most of the majority’s analysis in this case.
However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the jury was incurably confused about
the requisite intent necessary for a finding of guilty on the unarmed robbery count, or that
erroneous unarmed robbery instructions ““seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings independent of the defendant’s innocence.””
People v
Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999), citing United States v Olano, 507 US
725, 736-737; 113 S Ct 1770; 123 L Ed 2d 508.
While the trial court unfortunately stated somewhat confusingly that the jury could
consider the less serious crime of unarmed robbery plus accessory after the fact, I would not find
that this misstatement amounted to a conflating of the crimes of unarmed robbery and accessory
after the fact. The jury verdict form quite clearly set forth unarmed robbery and accessory after
the fact as separate crimes, and the verdict form instructed the jury to check only one box.
Further, the trial court ordered copies of the instructions read to the jury after closing arguments
to be made and provided in the jury room during deliberations. Thus, the jury had for its
immediate and constant review during deliberations not only CJI2d 8.1 (Aiding and Abetting)
and 8.6 (Accessory after the Fact), but also CJI2d 8.7 (Difference between Aider and Abettor and
Accessory after the Fact). There is no claim that the instructions sent in with the jury contained
the same misstatement.
I further disagree with the majority conclusion that the jury only intuitively understood it
could find defendant guilty of unarmed robbery on an aiding and abetting theory, but was
unlikely to have done so because the jury found the defendant not guilty of armed robbery on the
aiding and abetting theory. On the second day of jury deliberations, the jury posed a question to
-1-
the trial court1 which prompted the trial court and counsel to discuss the last use note to CJI2d
16.15 concerning the applicability of that instruction in cases involving aiding and abetting. It
seems apparent that the jury had a laser focus on the aiding and abetting instruction and was
diligently attempting to reconcile an aiding and abetting theory to what the facts showed
defendant’s involvement in the robbery to be.
Although there are some imperfections in the instructions provided to the jury, the
instructions adequately protected the defendant’s rights because the issues to be tried were fairly
presented to the jury. See People v Dumas, 454 Mich 390, 563 NW2d 31 (1997). Accordingly, I
would affirm.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
1
Unfortunately, this question was not read into the record buy the trial court.
-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.
