People v. Ragland, Docket No. 3968
| Decision Date | 29 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 3968,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 14 Mich.App. 425,165 N.W.2d 639 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmie RAGLAND, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
George H. Cholack, Detroit, for defendant-appellant; Edward P. Echlin, Detroit, of counsel.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Barbara K. Hackett, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before KAVANAGH, P.J., and LEVIN and BEER, * JJ.
The defendant-appellant, Jimmie Ragland, was tried and convicted by a jury and subsequently sentenced in the circuit court for the county of Wayne on a charge of felonious assault, C.L.1948, § 750.82 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.277):
'Felonious assault--Any person who shall assault another with a gun, revolver, pistol, knife, iron bar, club, brass knuckles or other dangerous weapon, but without intending to commit the crime of murder, and without intending to inflict great bodily harm less than the crime of murder, shall be guilty of a felony.'
This appeal raises two issues:
1. Is a flashlight a 'dangerous weapon' within the purview of C.L.1948, § 750.82 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.277)?
2. Was the trial court without jurisdiction by reason of the fact that the venue of the alleged offense was within the corporate limits of the city of Detroit?
We have examined the record and, in particular, the instructions of law by the trial court to the jury. The trial judge properly instructed the jury. It was for them to determine as a question of fact whether or not the flashlight was a dangerous weapon. The jury found against the defendant on this issue. The jury also had an opportunity to hear the testimony of the people's witnesses as to the manner in which the flashlight was used against the person of another human being. There is no error here.
During the trial the defendant strenuously contended the alleged offense occurred within the corporate limits of the city of Detroit. There was testimony on the part of the people in contradiction of this contention that the alleged offense occurred in Highland Park. The trial judge correctly covered the matter in his instructions, specifically telling the jury this was a question of fact for them to resolve. Obviously, from their verdict, they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Knapp
...not have been contemplated to inflict great bodily harm. With this position we cannot agree. In the case of People v. Ragland (1968), 14 Mich.App. 425, 426, 165 N.W.2d 639, 640, this Court, in considering whether a flashlight was a dangerous weapon, 'It was for them (the jury) to determine ......
-
People v. Van Diver
...N.W.2d 155 (1971)); a beer bottle (People v. Kildow, 19 Mich.App. 194, 172 N.W.2d 492 (1969)); and a flashlight (People v. Ragland, 14 Mich.App. 425, 165 N.W.2d 639 (1968)).2 Berfield v. State, 458 P.2d 1008 (Alaska, 1969); Dickson v. State, 230 Ark. 491, 323 S.W.2d 432 (1959); Johnsen v. S......
-
Conlon v. Dean
... ... Dean, jointly and severally, ... Defendants- Appellees ... Docket No. 2437 ... Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2 ... Nov 29, ... her he was acting in his official role as prosecutor for the people, and could in no sense be said to have been Mrs. Dean's private counsel. 2 ... ...
-
People v. Jones
... ... Daniel Cleo JONES, Defendant-Appellant ... Docket No. 10402 ... Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3 ... Nov. 22, 1971 ... Released for ... People v. Ragland (1968), 14 Mich.App. 425, 426, 165 ... N.W.2d 639; People v. Knapp (1971), 34 Mich.App. 325, 191 ... ...