People v. Moss, 14
| Decision Date | 08 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 14,14 |
| Citation | 243 N.W.2d 254,397 Mich. 69 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerald Raphael MOSS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Crim. Div., Robert M. Morgan, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Fink & LaRene, Neil H. Fink, Arthur Jay Weiss, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant was tried by a jury and found guilty of armed robbery. M.C.L.A. § 750.529; M.S.A. § 28.797. He argues that the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence the testimony of three prosecution witnesses describing their pretrial lineup identification of the defendant and the testimony of a police officer concerning identification. He questions the continuing validity of People v. Londe, 230 Mich. 484, 487, 203 N.W. 93, 94 (1925), where we said:
'It was proper for the witnesses who had seen the men at the time of the robbery to testify that they later identified the defendant as one of them, and it was equally proper for the officer to testify under what circumstances the identification was made.' 1
The record discloses that no objection was made to the testimony that the defendant now claims was erroneously admitted into evidence. No request was made to instruct the jury to disregard this testimony. The question whether the admission of this testimony was erroneous has not been properly preserved for appellate review.
'Ordinarily where no timely objection was made to the introduction of such testimony and no request to charge was made, this Court (will) not examine the points relied upon for reversal, and except under unusual circumstances we have no disposition to relax this rule.' People v. Dorrikas, 354 Mich. 303, 316, 92 N.W.2d 305, 307 (1958).
The defendant's conviction is affirmed.
1 See, however, People v. Poe, 388 Mich. 611, 618, 202 N.W.2d 320, 323 (1972), where we limited a police officer's testimony to "what took place' and under 'what circumstances the identification was made' and not, as here, the nature or quality of the identification.'
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Coles
...Carelock's identification testimony was erroneously admitted has not been properly preserved for appellate review. People v. Moss, 397 Mich. 69, 243 N.W.2d 254 (1976). Secondly, we find no factual support for either of defendant's claims. Defendant was not in custody when the photographic s......
-
People v. Wilki, Docket No. 66825
...to move for suppression of the identification testimony in the trial court precludes appellate review of this issue. People v. Moss, 397 Mich. 69, 70, 243 N.W.2d 254 (1976); People v. King, 107 Mich.App. 208, 210, 309 N.W.2d 207 (1981), rev'd on other grounds 413 Mich. 939, 321 N.W.2d 12 (1......
-
People v. McMillen
...concerning an allegedly suggestive pretrial identification precludes appellate review absent manifest injustice. People v. Moss, 397 Mich. 69, 243 N.W.2d 254 (1976); People v. King, 107 Mich.App. 208, 210, 309 N.W.2d 207 (1981), rev'd on other grounds 413 Mich. 939, 321 N.W.2d 12 (1982). We......
-
People v. Hoerl
...for a curative instruction. Absent these endeavors, the issue is not properly preserved for appellate review. People v. Moss, 397 Mich. 69, 70, 243 N.W.2d 254 (1976). Defendant finally alleges that reference to the term "mug shots" at trial impermissibly suggested to the jury the possibilit......