People v. Lumpkin

• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: People v. Lumpkin, 183 N.W.2d 384, 27 Mich.App. 143 (Mich. App. 1970)
• Decision Date: 05 October 1970
• Docket Number: No. 1,Docket No. 7301,1
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John A. LUMPKIN, Defendant-Appellant

Page 384

183 N.W.2d 384

27 Mich.App. 143

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John A. LUMPKIN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 7301.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

Oct. 5, 1970.

Leave to Appeal Denied Jan. 15, 1973.

Released for Publication Feb. 15, 1971.

Carl Levin, Arthur J. Tarnow, Legal Aid and Defender Ass'n., Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Patricia Pernick Boyle, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

The people have moved to affirm defendant's November 18, 1968 conviction by a recorder's court jury of statutory rape in violation of M.C.L.A. § 750.520 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.788). See GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

No showing that defendant was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974, was necessary because evidence of defendant's statements to police was elicited solely by defense counsel.

Since to objection was made at trial to in-court identifications of defendant, we do not consider allegations of error pertaining to such identifications where the record makes it reasonably certain that there was no injustice in allowing the identifications to be made. People v. Schram (1970), 23 Mich.App. 91, 178 N.W.2d 93.

Remarks in the prosecutor's closing argument objected by the defendant have been examined and found to have been permissible comments.

Finally, the gun found on defendant's person when he was arrested was admissible in evidence under the rule stated in People v. Hall (1969), 19 Mich.App. 95, 98, 172 N.W.2d 473.

Motion to affirm is granted.