People v. Hill
| Decision Date | 07 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 8413,2 |
| Citation | 184 N.W.2d 572,28 Mich.App. 502 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael HILL, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Bruce T. Leitman, Campbell, Lee, Kurzman & Leitman, Pontiac, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Thomas G. Plunkett, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before QUINN, P.J., and FITZGERALD and CARROLL, * JJ.
A jury convicted defendant of armed robbery; 1 he was sentenced and he appeals.
About 5:30 A.M. on March 2, 1968, two men entered the Wixom Pure station where Thomas Johns, a 15 year old boy, was the attendant. One of the men requested the key for the toilet, obtained the key and left. On his return, this man requested Johns to change a dollar. When Johns opened the cash register, the man placed a gun in Johns' side and reached into the cash register for money. The man struck Johns who fell down, and the man struck Johns again. Currency was taken from the cash register.
That day, or March 3, 1968, Johns identified defendant as the man with the gun who reached into the cash register for money. This identification was from photographs shown to Johns at the police station, and it is the basis of defendant's claim that the trial court erred reversibly in not granting defendant's pretrial motion to strike the in-court identification of defendant by Johns. This motion was founded on defendant's claim that the preliminary examination transcript established that Johns was given only one photograph for identification purposes, and thus the identification was overly suggestive in violation of Simmons v. United States (1968), 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247.
While excerpts from Johns' testimony at preliminary examination support defendant's contention that Johns made the identification from a single photograph, that transcript read in its entirety establishes that Johns selected defendant's photograph from a group of upwards of 20 photographs in making this identification, and it was not overly suggestive.
Defendant asserts error because of statements by the prosecuting attorney in his opening statement and closing argument. No objection was made below and objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeals. People v. Panknin (1966), 4 Mich.App. 19, 143 N.W.2d 806. We decline further comment.
Defendant is correct in his contention that it was error for the prosecuting attorney to state during defendant's cross-examination 'that nobody came forth in your defense with an alibi that you were at home', with reference to the preliminary examination. However, defendant's prompt objection was sustained and the jury was instructed to disregard the statement....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Martin, Docket No. 10357
...jury known his picture was in a police file of possible criminals and that he was suspected in another crime. See People v. Hill (1970), 28 Mich.App. 502, 184 N.W.2d 572. Consequently, any prejudice which may have resulted was harmless. People v. Wardell (1970), 26 Mich.App. 69, 181 N.W.2d ......
-
People v. Wheat
...statement of fact to the jury, a prompt objection and an instruction to disregard the statement precludes reversal. People v. Hill, 28 Mich.App. 502, 134 N.W.2d 572 (1970). Such a curative instruction is especially effective where the comment imparts no significant new information to the ju......
-
People v. Foster
...and a prompt instruction was given to disregard the remark. Under these circumstances, we find no reversible error. People v. Hill, 28 Mich.App. 502, 184 N.W.2d 572 (1970); People v. Wolke, 10 Mich.App. 582, 159 N.W.2d 882 The same is true of the issue raised with respect to a later remark ......