## Facts

- Jesse James Richardson, Jr. was involved in an altercation at Charles Johnson’s home, during which Marshall Cook struck Richardson in the head with a brick.
- Later the same day, Richardson obtained a shotgun and subsequently encountered Paul Cook (Marshall’s brother).
- Paul Cook was shot and killed.
- At trial, Richardson testified the shooting was accidental and that he intended to speak with Paul Cook about not pressing charges and about talking to Marshall.
- The trial court instructed the jury on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and other lesser offenses, but refused defense requests to instruct on involuntary manslaughter and reckless use of a firearm causing death or injury.
- The jury convicted Richardson of first-degree murder; the conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether refusing requested instructions on involuntary manslaughter and reckless use of a firearm causing death or injury—when supported by the evidence—was harmless because the jury was instructed on other lesser offenses but convicted of first-degree murder.
2. Whether the malice instructions, stating that the law “implies” malice from a sudden, unprovoked killing and that malice may be inferred from use of a deadly weapon “in the absence of contrary evidence,” improperly reduced the prosecution’s burden to prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the first-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the evidence supported instructions on involuntary manslaughter and reckless use of a firearm causing death or injury, and refusal to give those requested, applicable instructions was prejudicial error.
- The court also held the malice instruction was reversible error because it suggested malice could be treated as implied or effectively presumed, contrary to the requirement that the prosecution prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to jury instructions on necessarily included lesser offenses when the evidence provides a rational basis for conviction on the lesser offense and the instruction is properly requested.
- Failure to instruct on supported, requested lesser included offenses may be prejudicial even if the jury is instructed on other lesser offenses and returns a guilty verdict on the charged greater offense.
- Jury instructions may not imply a mandatory presumption on an element of the offense or suggest that an element is established unless the defendant produces “contrary evidence.”
- The prosecution must prove every element of the charged offense, including malice for murder, beyond a reasonable doubt; instructions that imply malice from specified facts risk shifting that burden.

## Conclusion

Because the jury was denied supported lesser-offense options consistent with the defense theory and was also given a malice instruction that could be understood as implying or presuming malice unless rebutted, the conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.


People v. Richardson, 293 N.W.2d 332 (Mich. 1980)