People v. Page, Docket No. 9115
| Citation | 183 N.W.2d 838,27 Mich.App. 682 |
| Decision Date | 30 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 9115,No. 2,2 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles A. PAGE, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
Patricia Costello, Monroe, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., James J. Rostash, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before J. H. GILLIS, P.J., and BRONSON and O'HARA, * JJ.
Defendant appeals from his conviction after jury trial upon a charge of robbery unarmed. M.C.L.A. § 750.530 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.798). The victims testified at trial that they were lured to the scene of the crime with a promise of sexual relations. To say the least, their confidence in the promisors was ill-founded. Once there, they were set upon by six men and one woman and relieved of what money they possessed without the quid pro quo. Defendant was identified as one of the six men involved.
On appeal, defendant questions only the propriety of the prosecutor's opening and closing statements to the jury, isolating eight different portions which allegedly operated to deprive him of his right to a fair trial. Plaintiff argues that defendant failed to object during trial to any of the statements, and consequently the issue is not preserved for review. This general principle of appellate practice is inapplicable, however, if the prosecutor's statements result in a miscarriage of justice. People v. Ignofo (1946), 315 Mich. 626, 634, 24 N.W.2d 514; People v. Smith (1968), 16 Mich.App. 198, 201, 167 N.W.2d 832.
We have examined the record with care. No particular value to the trial bench or the bar would result from setting out the challenged excerpts verbatim. They fell within the permissible limits of vigorous prosecution. There is no suggestion of a miscarriage of justice in the verdict. The trial judge carefully instructed the jury concerning the difference between evidence and argument.
'You may consider the statements and arguments of the lawyers, but not as being either the evidence or law for this case.'
We find no error. Affirmed.
* MICHAEL D. O'HARA, former Associate Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, appointed by the Supreme Court for the hearing month of September, 1970, pursuant to § 306 P.A.1964, No. 281.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Blassingame
...determine the facts. People v. Ballenberger, 51 Mich.App. 353, 214 N.W.2d 742 (1974), lv.den. 392 Mich. 753 (1974); People v. Page, 27 Mich.App. 682, 183 N.W.2d 838 (1970). Read as a whole, and in conjunction with the trial court's instruction, the closing argument of the prosecutor was not......
-
People v. Mitten
...is granted when the error causes a miscarriage of justice. People v. Smith, 16 Mich.App. 198, 167 N.W.2d 832 (1969); People v. Page, 27 Mich.App. 682, 183 N.W.2d 838 (1970). In an attempt to explain his theory that defendant assaulted deceased for his refusal to engage in this type of condu......
-
People v. Johnson
...Absent a miscarriage of justice, this precludes review. People v. Oliver, 29 Mich.App. 402, 185 N.W.2d 433 (1971); People v. Page, 27 Mich.App. 682, 183 N.W.2d 838 (1970). An examination of the jury charge reveals that the trial court went to great lengths to dispel any erroneous impression......
-
Service Emp. Intern. Union Local 79, AFL-CIO v. State Racing Commissioner, AFL-CI
... ... Michigan Civil Service Commission, Intervenor ... Docket No. 9039 ... Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2 ... Oct. 30, ... ...