People v. George
| Decision Date | 09 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 51,51 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Marie GEORGE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Oscar E. Liggett, Detroit, for defendant and appellant.
Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty., Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Angelo A. Pentolino, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for the People.
Before the Entire Bench.
Defendant was charged in complaint and warrant with (1) possession and (2) sale of narcotics. She was also charged therein as a second offender. After preliminary examination she was bound over for trial on the 2 counts of possession and of sale, but not as a second offender. An information was filed charging accordingly. She filed a motion to quash. This was denied. In argument on the motion, defendant's counsel asked that a count be added to the information charging 'addiction'. He said the assistant prosecuting attorney had agreed that he would add such court and counsel indicated that defendant would plead guilty to such charge. The court denied the motion to quash and defendant's request to add the 'addiction' count.
The jury found defendant guilty of both possession and sale.
Defendant's brief, in 4 pages, states 10 questions as being involved in this appeal. In its 3 pages of argument only 5 questions are discussed or mentioned. The others are to be deemed waived and will not be considered by this Court. People v. Thompson, 221 Mich. 621, 192 N.W. 543; People v. Coapman, 326 Mich. 321, 40 N.W.2d 167.
Was it error for the court to decline to permit the addition of an 'addiction' count to the information? No statute or rule requires the court to add a count at the request of defendant, nor even on motion of the prosecuting attorney. It is a matter for the discretion of the court. There is no showing of abuse of discretion in this connection.
Before the court on December 30, 1963, defendant's counsel asked for an adjournment for 1 week in order to have time to prepare for trial. This was denied. It appears from the record that trial did not actually begin until February 10, 1964. Thus, counsel had more than the requested 1 week's time to prepare for trial. No error.
Defendant complains of statement in assistant prosecutor's closing argument to jury that the only way officers can stop narcotics violations is by use of informers or so-called stool pigeons, and that a verdict of not guilty would amount to telling officers charged with enforcement of the narcotics law, 'Well, too bad, boys, you will just have to let these people go on.' The court immediately stated to the jury that this was improper argument and directed them to ignore it. The prosecutor's remarks were provoked and made in response to defense counsel's sarcastic attacks upon the record and integrity of the people's chief witness, the informer, and upon the officers for using him to make the buy from defendant. The record shows considerable provocation for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bahoda
...to promises, of leniency or other rewards for testifying resulted from contact with the prosecutor.29 See also People v. George, 375 Mich. 262, 265, 134 N.W.2d 222 (1965); People v. Green, 34 Mich.App. 149, 151, 190 N.W.2d 686 (1971).30 Q. Okay. So did you go ahead and sell the kilo to the ......
-
People v. Smyers
...of the record is referenced, and no authority of any kind is cited. This issue is deemed abandoned on appeal. People v. George, 375 Mich. 262, 264, 134 N.W.2d 222 (1965). Defendant finally contends that certain statements by the prosecuting attorney in rebuttal argument were prejudicially e......
-
People v. Palacios
...390 Mich. 245, 212 N.W.2d 222 (1973), and should have been charged as one offense. This issue is not now before us. People v. George, 375 Mich. 262, 134 N.W.2d 222 (1965). However, we note that "one transaction", for purposes of double jeopardy, is closely related to, but different from, th......
-
People v. Wright
...to have reopened the testimony. See 2 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law & Procedure (2d ed.), § 610, pp. 790--791, and People v. George, 375 Mich. 262, 134 N.W.2d 222 (1965). The trial court properly instructed the jury in the main charge. The objection of defendant's attorney on the record ......