People v. Ivy
Decision Date | 27 May 1968 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 2628,No. 1,1 |
Citation | 11 Mich.App. 427,161 N.W.2d 403 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Ralph IVY, Defendant-Appellant |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Arthur J. Koscinski, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Lansing, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Wayne County, Thomas P. Smith, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before KAVANAGH, P.J., and BURNS and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Defendant was convicted by jury verdict of assault with intent to rob being armed. C.L.1948, § 750.89 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.284). He appeals, raising 3 questions.
The first is whether the court below committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury that one of the possible verdicts they could render was guilty of the lesser offense of felonious assault (C.L.1948, § 750.82 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.277)), even though not such instruction was requested of the trial court.
The code of criminal procedure provides in pertinent part:
'The failure of the court to instruct on any point of law shall not be ground for setting aside the verdict of the jury unless such instruction is requested by the accused.' C.L.1948, § 768.29 (Stat.Ann.1964 Rev. § 28.1052).'
See, also, GCR 1963, 516.
In People v. Stevens (1968), 9 Mich.App. 531, 533, 534, 157 N.W.2d 495, 497, we said:
(Emphasis added).
See, also, People v. Jebb (1966), 3 Mich.App. 118, 141 N.W.2d 659. We hold that in the absence of a request the court did not err in failing to instruct on the offense of felonious assault.
Defendant next contends that there was error in the failure of the prosecutor to produce one of the witnesses whose name was indorsed on the information. By endorsing the name of a witness on the information the prosecutor becomes duty-bound to produce him at the trial, and the defendant is entitled to rely upon the prosecutor's duty. People v. Lummis (1932), 260 Mich. 170, 244 N.W. 438. The prosecutor may nevertheless be excused from producing the witness if he shows due diligence in attempting to produce him. People v. Kern (1967), 6 Mich.App. 406, 149 N.W.2d 216. The people submitted testimony for the purpose of showing due diligence to the effect that attempts to locate the witness were discontinued when it was learned that he had returned to his home somewhere in New York. In People v. Serra (1942), 301 Mich. 124, 3 N.W.2d 35, the Court said, with reference to the prosecutor's duty:
In the case at bar, upon learning that the witness had gone to New York the prosecutor did nothing further to locate him and to determine if he would appear at the trial voluntarily. The court submitted to the jury the question whether the people had made a sufficient showing of due diligence and instructed them that if they should find that the people had failed to make such a showing, they could consider that the witness, if called, would be adverse to the people. Such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Barker
...may rely upon the prosecutor to fulfill the obligation. People v. Lummis (1932), 260 Mich. 170, 244 N.W. 438, people v. Ivy (1968), 11 Mich.App. 427, 430, 161 N.W.2d 403. The trial court here improperly attempted to shift the responsibility for the production of these witnesses onto the def......
-
People v. Harris
...People v. Thomas, 26 Mich.App. 160, 182 N.W.2d 100 (1970), rev'd 386 Mich. 773, 192 N.W.2d 115 (1972).2 Ibid.3 Cf. People v. Ivy, 11 Mich.App. 427, 161 N.W.2d 403 (1968) (where the Court approved the procedure in which the question of due diligence was submitted to the jury) and People v. T......
-
People v. McKee
...v. Martin #1 (1970), 21 Mich.App. 207, 175 N.W.2d 320; People v. Clouse (1969), 18 Mich.App. 582, 171 N.W.2d 554; People v. Ivy (1968), 11 Mich.App. 427, 161 N.W.2d 403; People v. Mallory (1966), 2 Mich.App. 359, 139 N.W.2d 904.5 M.C.L.A. § 169.11b (Stat.Ann.1970 Cum.Supp. § ...
- People v. Byrd