People v. Nawrocki

• Decision Date: 24 November 1967
• Docket Number: Docket No. 2190,No. 3,3
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George NAWROCKI, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 45

154 N.W.2d 45

8 Mich.App. 225

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George NAWROCKI, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 2190.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

Nov. 24, 1967.

George Nawrocki, in pro. per.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, James K. Miller, Pros. Atty., Kent County, Grand Rapids, for appellee.

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

QUINN, Presiding Judge.

June 14, 1956 defendant was convicted by jury verdict of the offense of uttering and publishing a forged check contrary to the provisions of C.L.1948, § 750.249 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.446). His original sentence of probation was revoked for violation of the terms thereof, and he was sentenced to prison. His complaint for writ of habeas corpus filed with this Court was treated as an application for delayed appeal and it was granted.

At trial, the defense of alibi was properly raised and testimony supporting the defense was given. Defendant claims on appeal that the trial court erred reversibly in failing properly to instruct the jury on the defense of alibi. Defendant requested the following instruction on this point:

'One of the defenses interposed by the defendant in this case is what is known in law as an 'alibi',--that is, that the defendant was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime; and I instruct you that such a defense is as proper and as legitimate, if proven, as any other. And all the evidence bearing upon that point should be carefully considered by the jury. And if, in view of the evidence, the jury have any reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was at some other place at the time the crime was committed, they should give the defendant the benefit of any doubt, and find him not guilty. The defendant is not required to prove that defense beyond a reasonable doubt to entitle him to an acquittal. It is sufficient if the evidence upon that point raises a reasonable doubt of his presence at the time and place of the commission of the crime charged.'

The only instruction the court gave was:

'It is also his claim that on this night in question, February 1, that he had helped some people move into their home that they had rented or apartment they had rented on that very day; that they didn't get through with moving their furniture and things in until about half past five; that they stayed there and had supper or dinner; that after dinner they watched the...