People v. Jordan

• Citation: 19 Mich.App. 356,172 N.W.2d 495
• Decision Date: 01 October 1969
• Docket Number: Docket No. 7399,No. 1,1
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifford JORDAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 495

172 N.W.2d 495

19 Mich.App. 356

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifford JORDAN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 7399.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

Oct. 1, 1969.

Released for Publication Dec. 17, 1969.

Jack J. Kraizman, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Lansing, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Wayne County, Luvenia D. Dockett, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before DANHOF, P.J., and McGREGOR and BRONSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Clifford Jordan, Jr., was tried by jury and convicted on two counts of an information charging carnal knowledge of a female over the age of 16 contrary to C.L.S.1961, § 750.520 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.788) and robbery armed contrary to C.L.S.1961, § 750.529 (Stat.Ann.1969 Cum.Supp. § 28.797).

Two issues are advanced in support of this appeal. It is contended that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is also contended that the prosecution caused reversible error by stating in his closing remarks to the jury that he believed the defendant was guilty. The plaintiff has filed a motion to affirm the lower court conviction.

Defendant contends that the only evidence which linked him to the crimes was the eyewitness testimony of the complainant which it is contended was 'superficial at best.' The record demonstrates that the complainant made a positive unwavering identification. The credibility of this identification is further supported by the fact that she had recognized the defendant in the neighborhood pervious to the assault.

'The weight to be given to the testimony produced by the People was for the sole consideration of the jury. We cannot say that its verdicts were against the great weight of the evidence. There is evidence, if believed by the jury, to warrant a conviction in this case.' People v. Ranney (1943), 304 Mich. 315, 320, 8 N.W.2d 80, 81.

See, also, People v. Schram (1965), 1 Mich.App. 279, 136 N.W.2d 44.

Defendant's second issue is grounded on the prosecutor's closing remarks to the jury.

'And I say to you, Members of the Jury, from this positive testimony of this complainant, Mrs. Duke, and from the facts and circumstances of this case there would be a travesty of justice for this defendant to go free and I think, you, Members of the Jury, as a Prosecutor that I would be remiss in my duties after sitting here in court and hearing this testimony if I did not ask you, Members of the Jury, to find this...