People v. Boxx

• Decision Date: 21 April 1969
• Docket Number: Docket No. 4314,No. 2,2
• Citation: People v. Boxx, 168 N.W.2d 628, 16 Mich.App. 724 (Mich. App. 1969)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Henry BOXX, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 628

168 N.W.2d 628

16 Mich.App. 724

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Henry BOXX, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 4314.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

April 21, 1969.

Released for Publication July 1, 1969.

J. James Hiller, Shankland, Hiller, McCormick & Barnett, Ann Arbor, for appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William F. Delhey, Pros. Atty., Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor, for appellee.

Before McGREGOR, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and DANHOF, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant and three other men were involved in a robbery in the parking lot of a supper club. Their car was pursued by the police through Ann Arbor at high speed during which time several gun shots were fired from the car at the police. The car came to a halt in a rural area along an expressway. Subsequently, defendant was arrested and charged with armed robbery (C.L.1948, § 750.529 (Stat.Ann.1969 Cum.Supp. § 28.797)).

Pre-trial motions to quash the armed robbery charge and to suppress evidence seized from the car were denied, and a jury found the defendant guilty. Defendant filed motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial, both of which were denied. He has appealed.

Defendant raises several issues of merit. He claims that there was not sufficient evidence given at the preliminary examination to show that any weapons were used in the robbery. Thus, he should not have been bound over. The two victims testified that they felt hard objects pressed against them and observed what they thought were guns. This testimony was sufficient for the magistrate to find that the crime had been committed.

Defendant claims that certain comments of the prosecutor during his closing argument were prejudicial and caused reversible error....