People v. Stinson, Docket No. 77-2890
| Decision Date | 21 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 77-2890 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonard Earl STINSON, Defendant-Appellant. 88 Mich.App. 672, 278 N.W.2d 715 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[88 MICHAPP 673] Gerald S. Surowiec, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward R. Wilson, Appellate Chief, Asst. Pros. Atty., Robert T. Monk, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CAVANAGH, P. J., and BASHARA and ALLEN, JJ.
Defendant was found guilty in a bench trial of possession of a gas-ejecting device, contrary to M.C.L. § 750.224; M.S.A. § 28.421, and appeals.
The testimony adduced at trial established that defendant had in his possession a canister which he removed from his car and placed in the street. A Detroit police officer observed defendant's actions and retrieved the can. A police chemist testified that the canister contained "Paralyzer" CS military tear gas. The term "weapon" appeared on the canister.
Defendant first argues that the statute is unconstitutional for the reason that it is overly broad and vague. He contends that many innocuous products are within its scope and that it fails to designate those substances which are proscribed.
This Court has recently reviewed the statute in question. In People v. Guy, 84 Mich.App. 610, 270 N.W.2d 662 (1978), a majority of the panel concurred[88 MICHAPP 674] with the argument advanced by defendant in the case at bar. However, we unanimously adopt the reasoning of the dissenting opinion of Judge M. F. Cavanagh. That opinion held that while the statute's sweeping language opened it to attack, when its proscription was limited to possession of gas ejecting Weapons, certainty and constitutionality was established.
Defendant also contends that the prosecution's failure to prove that he was not licensed to possess a gas-ejecting device requires reversal of the conviction. Defendant failed to bring this issue to the attention of the trial court. Absent manifest injustice, matters unobjected to at the trial level are not preserved for review. People v. Carroll, 396 Mich. 408, 240 N.W.2d 722 (1976), People v. Atsilis, 60 Mich.App. 738, 231 N.W.2d 534 (1975). While the question might be arguable, the analogy of the facts in this case to those in People v. Henderson, 391 Mich. 612, 218 N.W.2d 2 (1974), convince us that no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lynch
...decision of the Court of Appeals in this case and in People v. Guy, 84 Mich.App. 610, 270 N.W.2d 662 (1978), with People v. Stinson, 88 Mich.App. 672, 278 N.W.2d 715 (1979).8 By 1980 P.A. 346, effective March 31, 1981, the Legislature has amended M.C.L. § 750.224; M.S.A. § 28.421 to expand ......
-
People v. Brown
...Absent objection at trial, the issue has not been preserved for appeal absent a finding of manifest injustice. People v. Stinson, 88 Mich.App. 672, 674, 278 N.W.2d 715 [104 MICHAPP 818] (1979). Where the prosecutor's remarks are challenged, "(f)ailure to object bars appellate review unless ......
-
People v. Sommerville, Docket No. 44034
...satisfied therewith. Thus, absent a finding of manifest injustice, the issue has not been preserved for review. People v. Stinson, 88 Mich.App. 672, 674, 278 N.W.2d 715 (1979). We find no manifest injustice in this case. As in People v. Payne, 90 Mich.App. 713, 722, 282 N.W.2d 456 (1979), j......
-
People v. Bowyer
...and the issue thus is not preserved for review, People v. Atsilis, 60 Mich.App. 738, 231 N.W.2d 534 (1975), People v. Stinson, 88 Mich.App. 672, 278 N.W.2d 715 (1979). Defendant's contention also fails on its merits because a time variance is permissible unless time is an element of the off......