People v. Goldberg

Decision Date03 December 1929
Docket NumberNo. 153,Oct. Term.,153
Citation227 N.W. 708,248 Mich. 553
PartiesPEOPLE v. GOLDBERG.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Recorder's Court of Detroit; Arthur W. Kilpatrick, Judge.

Arthur Goldberg was convicted of robbery, with intent, if resisted, to kill and maim, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench. Norman M. Snider, of Detroit (Chawke & Sloan, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.

Wilber M. Brucker, Atty. Gen., and James E. Chenot, Pros. Atty., and Philip J. Neudeck, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Detroit, for the People.

POTTER, J.

The defendant, Arthur Goldberg, was arrested, charged with robbery armed, with intent, if resisted, to kill and maim. On trial he was convicted, and brings error. He claims the trial court erred in charging the offense was established, and the only question was the claimed participation of defendant and in giving undue prominence to the people's witnesses. He claims the argument of the prosecuting attorney was prejudicial, and the court erred in failing to properly charge as to the weight to be given defendant's testimony and in denying defendant's motion for a new trial.

The question raised by defendant's first assignment of error has been ruled adversely to his contention in this state. People v. Bryan, 170 Mich. 683, 136 N. W. 1120;People v. Kolodzieski, 237 Mich. 654, 212 N. W. 958; 14 R. C. L. 739.

The statute, Act No. 175, Public Acts 1927, gives the court the right, ‘in his charge make such comment on the evidence, the testimony and character of any witnesses, as in his opinion the interest of justice may require.’ Section 29, c. VIII, Act No. 175, P. A. 1927.

Defendant complains that the court charged that, in determining the credibility of the witnesses, the jury was to take into consideration the surroundings of the witnesses for the people and their ability to absolutely identify defendant. The charge was warranted by the facts, and was as favorable to defendant as he was entitled to. The court said they were to take these things into consideration with the other testimony in the case, and charged that, when they had considered the testimony, one of two verdicts could be rendered. We do not think the court erred to defendant's prejudice.

[3] Defendant contends there was error in the argument of the prosecuting attorney. There is nothing in the record indicating the court's attention was called to the alleged erroneous argument during the trial; that he was given any opportunity to correct the same; that any ruling was requested, or any exceptions taken to the claimed erroneous argument at the time. Under such circumstances this court will not consider the question. People v. Giddings, 159 Mich. 523, 124 N. W. 546,18 Ann. Cas. 844;People v. Mulvaney, 171 Mich. 272, 137 N. W. 155;People v. Sartori, 168 Mich. 308, 134 N. W. 200.

Defendant's counsel may not sit by and listen to the claimed prejudicial argument of the prosecuting attorney, relying upon his ability to reply thereto, and, when the verdict is adverse, take a post mortem exception thereto. If there was anything in the argument prejudicial to defendant, it was the right of defendant's co...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • People v. Duncan
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • January 1, 1976
    ...(1950); People v. Zesk, 309 Mich. 129, 14 N.W.2d 808 (1944); People v. Connors, 251 Mich. 99, 230 N.W. 931 (1930); People v. Goldberg, 248 Mich. 553, 227 N.W. 708 (1929); M.C.L.A. § 769.26; M.S.A. § We examine the prosecutor's remarks in the context in which they were made. People v. Allen,......
  • People v. Omacht, 66
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1950
    ...remark or comment, and that it is the duty of the opposing counsel to seek and obtain a ruling of the trial judge. People v. Goldberg, 248 Mich. 553, 227 N.W. 708.' People v. Rosa, 268 Mich. 462, 466, 256 N.W. 483, In a case strikingly like the instant case in its background, without dissen......
  • People v. Bigge
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • April 4, 1939
    ...remark or comment, and that it is the duty of the opposing counsel to seek and obtain a ruling of the trial judge. People v. Goldberg, 248 Mich. 553, 227 N.W. 708.’ With regard to the conduct of the prosecutor in attempting to prove similar acts as bearing upon the quo animo of defendant, a......
  • People v. Hancock
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1950
    ...too late. Objections to argument not made at the trial, but made for the first time on appeal will not be considered. People v. Goldberg, 248 Mich. 553, 227 N.W. 708; People v. Connors, 251 Mich. 99, 230 N.W. 931; People v. Korn, 217 Mich. 170, 185 N.W. 817; and People v. Zesk, 309 Mich. 12......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT