People v. Ragland, Docket No. 10211

• Decision Date: 28 June 1971
• Docket Number: Docket No. 10211,No. 1,1
• Citation: 34 Mich.App. 673,192 N.W.2d 73
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmie RAGLAND et al., Defendants-Appellants
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 73

192 N.W.2d 73

34 Mich.App. 673

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmie RAGLAND et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 10211.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

June 28, 1971.

Released for Publication Dec. 8, 1971.

Charles Rubinoff, Detroit, for defendants-appellants.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Michael R. Mueller, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before T. M. BURNS, P.J., and FITZGERALD and R. B. BURNS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants Jimmie and Norman Ragland were found guilty of second degree murder, ¹ defendants Johnnie and Jessie Ragland were found guilty of manslaughter. ² The people have filed a motion to affirm pursuant to GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

Defendants Jimmie and Norman Ragland did not make a motion for a new trial and are here attacking the weight of the evidence. Not having made the requisite motion, that issue is foreclosed from review. People v. Mattison (1970), 26 Mich.App. 453, 182 N.W.2d 604. Defendants Johnnie and Jessie Ragland also failed to move for a new trial, but this does not prevent them from pressing their claim that the evidence was legally insufficient. They were charged as accessories, the people contending that they aided and abetted the commission of this homicide. ³ While there is no evidence that either Johnnie or Jessie actually shot the deceased, they were involved throughout; and there was certainly enough evidence to go to the jury under the standard of People v. Hogan (1967), 9 Mich.App. 78, 155 N.W.2d 866.

A complete review of the transcript in this case reveals that the questions presented are so insubstantial as to warrant no argument or formal submission.

Accordingly, the people's motion to affirm is granted.

1 M.C.L.A. § 750.317 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.549).

2 M.C.L.A. § 750.321 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.553).

3 M.C.L.A. § 767.39 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.979).