## Facts

- Bertha Clark was the adoptive mother of a child adopted at nine months old.
- The child died unexpectedly at age four.
- The medical examiner ultimately concluded the child died from dehydration that could not be explained by an underlying disease process.
- Because of ligature marks and bruising observed on the child’s body, investigators suspected child abuse.
- The child was described as having overwhelming thirst without a discovered medical basis and, at times, would drink from toilets; he also had frequent urination and began bed-wetting around age two.
- On medical advice, Clark restricted the child’s liquid intake several hours before bedtime and also sought limits on the child’s water intake at school; the prosecution argued the restrictions went further and caused fatal dehydration.
- Trial evidence included testimony that Clark would keep the child tied in bed with a cloth belt or nylon stockings.
- A jury convicted Clark of involuntary manslaughter, and she was sentenced to 7 to 15 years in prison.
- On appeal, Clark argued she was denied a fair trial when the judge changed the involuntary-manslaughter jury instruction after initially agreeing to a defense-requested modification and after defense counsel had built closing argument around the modified instruction.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial based on prejudice from the change in instructions.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Clark was denied a fair trial when the trial court, after initially approving a defense-requested modification of the involuntary-manslaughter instruction and allowing defense counsel to argue based on it, ultimately gave the unmodified standard instruction to the jury.
2. Whether the timing and circumstances of the change in the instruction (after defense reliance in summation) were sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal and a new trial.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
- The court held that Clark was prejudiced by the trial court’s change in the jury instructions on involuntary manslaughter.
- Because the defense structured its theory and closing argument around the earlier, approved modified instruction, switching to the standard instruction after summations unfairly disadvantaged the defense.
- The conviction was set aside, and Clark was entitled to a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court’s jury instructions must not be changed in a way that unfairly prejudices a party after counsel has reasonably relied on the court’s earlier ruling when presenting closing argument.
- When a judge initially approves a requested instruction (or modification) and counsel shapes summation around that understanding, a later switch to a materially different instruction can deny the defendant a fair trial.
- Even if the final instruction is otherwise legally correct, the process and timing of an instructional change may require reversal when it alters the framework the jury uses to evaluate the case after the defense has already committed to a strategy in closing.
- Appellate review focuses on whether the late change likely affected the fairness of the trial by impairing counsel’s ability to argue the case under the legal standard the jury ultimately received.

## Conclusion

In *People v. Clark*, the Michigan Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that Clark’s involuntary-manslaughter conviction could not stand because the trial judge changed the governing jury instruction after initially approving a defense modification and after defense counsel relied on that approval in closing argument; the late shift created prejudice that warranted reversal and a new trial.


People v. Clark, 556 N.W.2d 820 (1996)