People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 25 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 9635,1 |
| Citation | 187 N.W.2d 490,31 Mich.App. 191 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Joseph SMITH, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Carl Ziemba, 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., Leonard Meyers, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and FITZGERALD and LEVIN, JJ.
Defendant Larry Joseph Smith was arrested and charged with the robbery of a Detroit area drug store which occurred in May of 1969. He was subsequently tried by a jury and on February 27, 1970, was convicted of robbery armed, a violation of M.C.L.A. § 750.529 (Stat.Ann.1970 Cum.Supp. § 28.797).
Testimony elicited during the trial disclosed that late in the afternoon of May 13, 1969, two men, one of whom was brandishing a gun, entered the Parkway Drug Store at 22443 Plymouth road in Detroit and announced a holdup. After compelling a clerk to fill a paper bag with money, the men also directed the pharmacist to place certain narcotics in the same bag. The customers present were ordered to remain still and to place their hands against the counter. The pair then fled.
Two issues are raised on this appeal, both of which concern the trial court's instructions to the jury. Defendant's first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in failing to include defendant's theory of the case in the instructions to the jury. Defendant's contention was that the identification of defendant by four eyewitnesses was contradictory and unreliable. The record reveals that defendant did not request such a charge during the course of the trial nor did he object to the instructions given. Therefore, he is now precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal. GCR 1963, 516.2; People v. Wright (1970), 23 Mich.App. 330, 178 N.W.2d 545; People v. Schram (1970), 23 Mich.App. 91, 178 N.W.2d 93; People v. Floyd (1968), 15 Mich.App. 284, 166 N.W.2d 506; People v. Ivy (1968), 11 Mich.App. 427, 161 N.W.2d 403.
Defendant also contends that the court erred in overemphasizing the charge of robbery armed in relation to the lesser included offenses. The trial court gave a complete instruction on the elements of armed robbery. The jury was also instructed on the four lesser included offenses of assault...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hammack
...Court will not review defendant's claims of an erroneous instruction, absent manifest injustice. GCR 1963, 516.2, People v. Smith, 31 Mich.App. 191, 187 N.W.2d 490 (1971). In reviewing jury instructions for manifest injustice, this Court will look at the instructions as a whole and not only......
-
People v. Combs, Docket No. 23480
...instructions and therefore we will only review the instructions to determine if there is manifest injustice. GCR 516.2, People v. Smith, 31 Mich.App. 191, 187 N.W.2d 490 (1971). We also look at the instructions as a whole and not at isolated portions of the charge. People v. Green, 34 Mich.......
-
People v. Riley
...the alleged error to determine if it caused manifest injustice, which we conclude it did not. GCR 1963, 516.2, People v. Smith, 31 Mich.App. 191, 192, 187 N.W.2d 490 (1971). 1 A better term for the exception used in this case is an excited utterance or spontaneous declaration. See McCormick......
-
People v. Paduchoski, Docket No. 14577
... ... Absent a showing of manifest injustice, objections to instructions cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. GCR 1963, 516.2; People v. Flowers, 30 Mich.App. 579, 186 N.W.2d 777 (1971); People v. Miron, 31 Mich.App. 142, 187 N.W.2d 497 (1971); People v. Smith, 31 Mich.App ... 191, 187 N.W.2d 490 (1971). No manifest injustice resulted from the instruction on intent. We hold therefore, no reversible error arose from this instruction ... Next, did the trial court commit reversible error when it ruled during cross-examination of the key ... ...