People v. Peay
| Decision Date | 08 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 10774,No. 3,3 |
| Citation | 37 Mich.App. 414,195 N.W.2d 75 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel PEAY, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Arthur J. Tarnow, State Appellate Defender, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., James K. Miller, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Johnston, III, Chief Appellate Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before R. B. BURNS, P.J., and LEVIN and T. M. BURNS, JJ.
Defendant was charged with willfully and without authority taking possession of and driving away a motor vehicle belonging to another, M.C.L.A. § 750.413, M.S.A. § 28.645. He was tried by a jury, found guilty of the offense, and sentenced to a term of 4 1/2 to 5 years in prison. Defendant brings this appeal as of right.
Defendant first contends that during an attempt by the prosecutor to impeach his credibility, he was improperly questioned about a prior arrest which did not result in a conviction. This Court has recently held that a defendant may only be questioned, for credibility purposes, about crimes of which the defendant has been convicted. See People v. Brocato, 17 Mich.App. 277, 169 N.W.2d 483 (1969).
Defendant was asked about a crime of which he had not been convicted; he was asked whether he was convicted of attempting to obtain merchandise by false pretenses. It appears that this was inadvertently done due to an incorrect 'rap sheet' which had been provided for the prosecution by the state police. The prosecutor immediately stopped questioning the defendant about prior convictions as soon as defendant stated that he had already related all of his previous convictions. The defendant had admitted prior arrests and convictions for larceny in a building and possession of stolen property and to having been involved in a 'raid'. We are convinced from our examination of the record that the defendant was not prejudiced by the prosecutor's inadvertent error; and therefore, since there was no objection on the part of the defendant, we will not review the question further.
The defendant also contends that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the element of intent. The trial court instructed the jury as follows:
'The second is that he drove it away or took it away from the place where it was located.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Charles
...inadvertent error caused no prejudice to the defendant; and since no objection was made, we find no reversible error. People v. Peay, 37 Mich.App. 414, 195 N.W.2d 75 (1971), lv. den., 388 Mich. 795 Of the many photographs taken by the police at the scene of the murder, two were admitted int......
-
People v. Sanders
...been arrested. Even when the answer was in the negative the prosecutor continued to pursue the area of arrest only. People v. Peay, 37 Mich.App. 414, 195 N.W.2d 75 (1971), is also distinguishable from the present case. There the trial court allowed the prosecution to question the defendant ......
-
People v. Szczytko
...People v. Gill, 8 Mich.App. 89, 153 N.W.2d 800 (1967); People v. Morgan, 27 Mich.App. 388, 183 N.W.2d 617 (1970); People v. Peay, 37 Mich.App. 414, 195 N.W.2d 75 (1971). Although defendant now suggests that 'the taking off of her clothes could have been for some other reason than to commit ......
-
People v. Tooks
...to the defendant. Given the absence of an objection, we cannot say that manifest injustice has been demonstrated. See People v. Peay, 37 Mich.App. 414, 195 N.W.2d 75 (1971), leave to appeal den., 388 Mich. 795 (1972); People v. Sanders (concurring opinion), 43 Mich.App. 698, 204 N.W.2d 706 ......