People v. Schram

• Decision Date: 30 March 1970
• Docket Number: No. 1,Docket No. 7167,1
• Citation: People v. Schram, 23 Mich.App. 91, 178 N.W.2d 93 (Mich. App. 1970)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael SCHRAM, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 93

178 N.W.2d 93

23 Mich.App. 91

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Michael SCHRAM, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 7167.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

March 30, 1970.

Released for Publication July 2, 1970.

Carl Levin, Arthur J. Tarnow, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

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

Before QUINN, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and FITZGERALD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Convicted by jury verdict and sentenced for armed robbery, M.C.L.A. § 750.529(Stat.Ann.1969 Cum.Supp. § 28.797), defendant appeals.He asserts two grounds of alleged reversible error, namely: improper admission of identification testimony and erroneous instruction.

No objection was made below either to the admission of the identification testimony or the instruction.These errors may not be raised for the first time on appeal and this Court will not consider them except to avoid clear injustice.People v. Ivy(1968), 11 Mich.App. 427, 161 N.W.2d 403.This record demonstrates no injustice.

Two additional reasons dictate affirmance, however.Assuming arguendo that it was error to admit the identification testimony, it was not reversible error in view of identification by three other witnesses.

During its instructions, the trial court said, 'I do not think there is any serious dispute that a crime in fact was committed.'However, the question of whether a crime was committed was left to the jury for its determination.On this record, the court's statement was...