People v. Hill, Docket No. 10183

• Decision Date: 28 June 1971
• Docket Number: No. 2,Docket No. 10183,2
• Citation: 34 Mich.App. 669,192 N.W.2d 84
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William HILL, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 84

192 N.W.2d 84

34 Mich.App. 669

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William HILL, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 10183.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

June 28, 1971.

Released for Publication Dec. 8, 1971.

James W. Lang, Flint, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Robert F. Leonard, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Kuebler, Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before DANHOF, P.J., BROSON, and O'HARA, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged with and convicted of armed robbery ¹ on January 30, 1969, following a two-day jury trial. Defendant's motion for a new trial, in which he presented for the first time all issues he now raises for consideration on appeal, was denied July 17, 1970.

Two men robbed Block's Jewelry Store in Flint at gunpoint at about 1 p.m. on July 25, 1968. Complainant Jacob Block positively identified defendant as one of the two armed robbers. Fresh palm prints and fingerprints, which were lifted from a jewelry counter where defendant had stood admiring a watch and ring moments prior to the actual robbery, were positively identified as those of the defendant and were admitted into evidence at trial without objection. Defendant was arrested shortly before 6 a.m. on July 27, while wearing the same watch and ring he had admired in the jewelry store less than 48 hours previously, and trying to sell watches also identified at trial as part of the haul from the robbery.

Defendant testified in his own behalf, explaining that two friends had given him the watches for him to try to sell. He further testified that he had been in Block's Jewelry Store on July 23, two days before the robbery, and that no one could recall having seen him then because no one had waited on him at that time. Expert fingerprint technicians testified that any fingerprints defendant may have claimed to have left at the scene two days prior to the robbery would have appeared faded, and not so fresh as the palm prints and fingerprints actually collected by the police.

Defendant now seeks review of the police procedure involving his arrest, search and seizure of the jewelry in his possession at arrest, his right to counsel at the lineup, and the lineup itself. All facts and circumstances surrounding the above issues were well known by both defendant and his trial attorney in advance of the trial. No motion to suppress was raised before trial, nor was any objection raised at trial, regarding the aforesaid issues. Further, no minimal proofs of manifest injustice on the record are tendered by defendant. Failure to present timely objections for trial court determination precludes our review on these issues. People v. Wilson (1967), 8 Mich.App. 651, 658, 155 N.W.2d 210; People v. Childers (1969), 20 Mich.App. 639, 645, 174 N.W.2d 565; People v. Kennedy (1970), 22 Mich.App. 524, 527, 177 N.W.2d 669; People v. Williams #1 (1970), 23 Mich.App. 129, 130, 131, 178 N.W.2d 128; and People v. Rowls (1970), 28 Mich.App. 190, 196, 184 N.W.2d 332.

Defendant also contends that his palm prints and fingerprints were improperly admitted into evidence at trial, evidence which he neither sought to suppress nor objected to before an adverse jury verdict was rendered. To support his contention he cites case wherein criminal convictions had been reversed because they had been based solely on the unexplained presence of a fingerprint in a place to which the defendant may have had access at another time. Such cases arise the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence, an issue not raised in the instant case.

United States v. Scarpellino (C.A. 8, 1970), 431 F.2d 475, is more to the point....