People of City of Detroit v. Ritchey, Docket No. 4866
| Decision Date | 29 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 4866,1 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF the CITY OF DETROIT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruth Ann RITCHEY, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
John B. Carlin, Jr., Morad, Frankland & Carlin, Southfield, for defendant-appellant.
Robert C. Reese, Corp. Counsel, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and J. H. GILLIS and O'HARA, * JJ.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of loitering in the city of Detroit in violation of a Detroit city ordinance. ** Upon appeal, she questions the constitutionality of the ordinance and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury.
The first challenge has already been answered by this Court. We have determined that:
City of Detroit v. Wedlow (1967), 17 Mich.App. 134, 139, 169 N.W.2d 145, 147.
A review of the transcript establishes that there was testimony before the jury which supported the jury's verdict. A reviewing court will not weigh evidence anew. People v. Eagger (1966), 4 Mich.App. 449, 145 N.W.2d 221. Because there is evidence upon the record which supports the jury verdict, and the record is free of constitutional error, this case must be affirmed. People v. Danles (1969), 15 Mich.App. 510, 166 N.W.2d 620.
We are satisfied that defendant was fairly tried. Other issues raised are without merit.
Affirmed.
* MICHAEL D. O'HARA, former Associate Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, appointed by the Supreme Court for the hearing month of May 1970, pursuant to § 306 P.A.1964, No. 281.
** Detroit City Ordinance 78C (§ 58--1--10 of the Detroit City Code.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henrichs v. Hildreth
...to be facially violative of any constitutional provision invoked by defendant, federal or state. Accord, People of City of Detroit v. Ritchey, 25 Mich.App. 98, 181 N.W.2d 87, 88 (1970); People v. Deutsch, 19 Mich.App. 74, 172 N.W.2d 392, 394-395 (1969); People v. Wedlow, 17 Mich.App. 134, 1......
-
State v. Ecker
...People v. Solomon, 33 Cal.App.3d 429, 108 Cal.Rptr. 867, cert. den. 415 U.S. 951, 94 S.Ct. 1476, 39 L.Ed.2d 567 (1974); People of Detroit v. Ritchey, 25 Mich.App. 98, 181 N.E.2d 87 (1970). In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a New Hampshire s......
-
State v. E.L.
...Solomon, 33 Cal.App.3d 429, 108 Cal.Rptr. 867, cert. den. 415 U.S. 951, 94 S.Ct. 1476, 39 L.Ed.2d 567 (1974); People of Detroit v. Ritchey, 25 Mich.App. 98, 181 N.W.2d 87 (1970). Id. at 107-08. The court emphasized that the statute required that the loitering must occur under "circumstances......