People v. Miron, Docket No. 8775
Decision Date | 24 February 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 8775,1 |
Citation | 187 N.W.2d 497,31 Mich.App. 142 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger Lee MIRON, Defendant-Appellant |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
M. Glenn Grossman, 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 P. Boyle, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and FITZGERALD and LEVIN, JJ.
On May 9, 1968, the defendant was convicted by a jury of robbery armed contrary to M.C.L.A. § 750.529 (Stat.Ann.1970 Cum.Supp. § 28.797), and sentenced to serve 7 1/2 to 12 years in prison.
The first issue raised on appeal concerns the manner in which the court conducted the Voir dire. Defendant complains that En masse questioning of prospective jurors was improper and that this error was aggravated when replacement jurors were questioned less fully than the original panel. Not only do these contentions lack substantive merit in light of this record, but they were waived by the defendant's express indication of satisfaction with the jury. People v. Jenkins (1970), 23 Mich.App. 39, 178 N.W.2d 103; People v. Rose (1934), 268 Mich. 529, 256 N.W. 536.
Next defendant contends that the court erred in instructing the jury: 1. that they could not make written notes and 2. that they could not consider as evidence the robbery victim's refusal to sign the complaint. The record reveals that the defendant failed to make any objection to these instructions as required by GCR 1963, 516.2. Accordingly, in the absence of a showing of substantial injustice, it is our duty to affirm. People v. Martin #1 (1970), 21 Mich.App. 207, 175 N.W.2d 320.
Finally, defendant contends that the prosecutor's argument to the jury was improper and constituted reversible error. We do not agree.
Among the things alleged to have been taken in the armed robbery were three 20-dollar bills, a diamond ring, and a black leather jacket. At the phone booth where the defendant was arrested, the police found $82.00, a diamond ring, and a black jacket. In response to defense counsel's statement that since $82.00 was found on the defendant's person and only three 20-dollar bills were reported stolen, it was evidently not the same money, the prosecutor said, without objection:
(Emphasis supplied)
In point of fact, while the complaining witness testified that three 20-dollar bills were taken there was no testimony on the record concerning the denominations of the bills in defendant's pocket, and the bills themselves, although offered, were not admitted into evidence.
Assertions of personal knowledge by the prosecutor are clearly improper....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Brown
...Co. of Mo., 234 S.W.2d 223, 226-227 (Mo.App.1950), People v. Rose, 268 Mich.App. 529, 256 N.W. 536, 537 (1934), and People v. Miron, 31 Mich.App. 142, 187 N.W.2d 497 (1971) as supporting the rule on waiver of objections to a jury panel contained in 50 C.J.S. Juries § 254, quoted supra. We a......
-
State v. Turnbough
...C.J.S. Juries § 254, p. 1016 and cases cited at n. 65; People v. Rose, 268 Mich. 529, 256 N.W. 536, 537(2) (1934); People v. Miron, 31 Mich.App. 142, 187 N.W.2d 497 (1971). Not only did defendant thus waive his objection at this point, he reaffirmed that waiver later, after peremptory chall......
-
People v. Duerson, Docket No. 9672
...response. In any event, he expressed satisfaction with the jury on the record. Any claimed error was waived. People v. Miron (1971), 31 Mich.App. 142, 187 N.W.2d 497; People v. Jenkins (1970), 23 Mich.App. 39, 178 N.W.2d Next, he attacks the in-court identification by prosecution witnesses ......
-
People v. Paduchoski, Docket No. 14577
...be raised for the first time on appeal. GCR 1963, 516.2; People v. Flowers, 30 Mich.App. 579, 186 N.W.2d 777 (1971); People v. Miron, 31 Mich.App. 142, 187 N.W.2d 497 (1971); People v. Smith, 31 Mich.App. 191, 187 N.W.2d 490 (1971). No manifest injustice resulted from the instruction on int......