People v. Jebb
Decision Date | 26 April 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 549,No. 3,549,3 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delmar Harvey JEBB, Defendant-Appellant. Cal |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Thomas P. Patterson, Patterson & Patterson, Bay City, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Martin B. Legatz, Pros. Atty., Bay County, Bay City, for appellee.
Before WATTS, P.J., and FITZGERALD and HOLBROOK, JJ.
Delmar Harvey Jebb was found guilty by jury of rape in violation of C.L.S.1961, § 750.520 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.788) in Bay county circuit court. Defendant was sentenced to Jackson Prison on September 30, 1959, to a term of not less than 20 nor more than 30 years. On January 7, 1965, a petition for appointment of counsel for an indigent for purposes of appellate review was filed by the defendant and counsel appointed by order of the same date. Thereupon counsel proceeded to file a claim of appeal on February 15, 1965, clearly beyond the jurisdictional time requirement for taking an appeal contained in GCR 1963, 803.1. The proper procedure for counsel would have been to file an application for delayed appeal pursuant to GCR 1963, 803.3 and 806.4(2). We shall treat the filing in this appeal as an application for delayed appeal and hereby order the application granted.
The complainant is a 44-year old woman who lives alone in Bay City, Michigan. The defendant is a young man who had visited friends living in the complainant's neighborhood and had seen her dressed in shorts, working in her garden.
No useful purpose can be served by repeating the many sordid facts in the record. The testimony is clear and undisputed that defendant Jebb forced his way into complainant's house at approximately 5:00 a.m. on May 30, 1959, and had sexual relations with her. She testified that defendant chocked, beat, abused, blindfolded, put her in fear of her life, and committed an act of sexual intercourse against her will.
The defendant contends that he forced his way into complainant's house and she consented to the act of sexual intercourse.
The defendant claims: (1) that it was error for the trial court to restrict the jury to a charge of rape alone in view of the testimony; and (2) that the admission in evidence of defendant's June 2, 1959, statement was a violation of his constitutional rights.
The trial court did not instruct the jury on the offenses included in the crime of rape, nor did counsel make such a request.
The Court finds no reversible error in the instruction given to the jury by the trial court. Code of criminal procedure, C.L.1948, § 768.29 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.1052) reads as follows:
In People v. Thomas (1965), 1 Mich.App. 444, 136 N.W.2d 721, this Court held that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on the included offenses when there was no request to do so by counsel. Cited in support of this Court's finding: People v. Allie (1921), 216 Mich. 133, 184 N.W. 423; People v. Robinson (1924), 228 Mich. 64, 199 N.W. 622; People v. Collins (1921), 216 Mich. 541, 185 N.W. 850; People v. Manchester (1926), 235 Mich. 594, 209 N.W. 815.
There is ample evidence to support the People's contention that the defendant's statement of June 2, 1959, was voluntary and accepted in evidence only after his counsel stated that he had no objection to receiving the statement in evidence.
'The Court: If you don't speak louder witness, the jury is not going to hear. You will have to speak up.
'The Court: What time was this?
'The Court: What do you mean?
'
'
'
'
The record indicates that there was no delay by the defendant, the police, or the court after the alleged attack.
After the defendant left the house, the complainant called her neighbor on the telephone and told her something terrible had happened and that she was afraid and asked her to watch the house because she was going to call the police and wanted to make sure 'nobody came to my house and caught me calling the police.' The complainant called the police department and told them that a young man had broken into her home, beat and raped her, and that she wanted the police to come out. Within 5 minutes a police officer came to her home. Later other officers came to her home and showed her a number of pictures. She identified a picture of the defendant Jebb....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hart v. State
...358 N.W.2d 376 (1984). The "treated as" solution was not unknown before unpublished opinions were allowed. See People v. Jebb , 3 Mich. App. 118, 119-120, 141 N.W.2d 659 (1966).9 See, e.g., Ulery v. Coy , 153 Mich. App. 551, 555-556, 396 N.W.2d 480 (1986), vacated on other grounds 428 Mich.......
-
People v. Camak
...for robbery armed were present. No request to charge as to the included offenses was made by the defendant. In the case of People v. Jebb (1966), 3 Mich. App. 118 on p. 121, 141 N.W.2d 659 on p. 661, this Court stated: 'In People v. Thomas (1965), 1 Mich. App. 444, 136 N.W.2d 721, this Cour......
- Cook v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 442
-
People v. Ivy
...instruct on the lesser offense. People v. Milhem (1957), 350 Mich. 497, 87 N.W.2d 151.' (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 assa......