In People v. Rand, 397 Mich 638, 641; 247 NW2d 508 (1976), modified 399 Mich 1040 (1977), the form of the verdict included an option for "assault to do great bodily harm less than the crime of murder." The words "with intent" were accidentally omitted. Id. The trial court sentenced defendant for "assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than the crime of murder." Id. at 642. On appeal, the Court found that there was no error requiring reversal because the verdict, as adduced by reference to the record, clearly convicted defendant of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than the crime of murder. Id. at 643-645. "To find otherwise would, quite literally, exalt the form over the substance." Id. at 645. In reaching its conclusion, the Court ruled: Defendant, however, would preclude any interpretation of the jury's verdict which does not contain a reference to each element of the offense upon which conviction lies, despite the fact that examination of the four corners of the record may reveal beyond peradventure the jury's intention. We cannot agree. . . . . . . . The written form of the verdict should not be exalted over the substantive intent of the jury. We hold, therefore, that a jury verdict is not void for uncertainty if the jury's intent can be clearly deduced by reference to the pleadings, the court's charge, and the entire record. This standard of "clear deducibility" adequately protects the defendant's right to trial by jury while it avoids artificiality in the construction of the jury verdict. Id. at 643.