People v. Wickham
| Decision Date | 22 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Docket No. 3499,3 |
| Citation | 164 N.W.2d 681,13 Mich.App. 650 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Michael WICKHAM, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Roger M. Clark, Warner, Norcross & Judd, Grand Rapids, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, James K. Miller, Pros. Atty., Kent County, Grand Rapids, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and FITZGERALD and TEMPLIN *, JJ.
Defendant was tried by the court, without a jury, and found guilty of the crime of using a motor vehicle without authority but without intent to steal, contrary to C.L.1948, § 750.414 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.646).
Defendant claims error on appeal in that the preliminary examination was not held within the ten-day statutory period. Upon arraignment in Grand Rapids police court on the charge his examination was set within the ten-day period, but was later adjourned on motion of the assistant prosecutor, with an additional two-day adjournment resulting from the death of one of the circuit court judges. At no time before the preliminary examination did defendant demand a more speedy examination, or move for dismissal of the charge on such a basis. The actual examination was held 21 days after the arraignment.
This Court held in People v. Nawrocki (1967), 6 Mich.App. 46, 60, 150 N.W.2d 516, that 'in order to protect the right to a speedy trial, it must be demanded', citing People v. Foster (1933), 261 Mich. 247, 246 N.W. 60.
Aside from the well-settled law that formal demand must be entered on the record by the defendant before he can claim violation of his right to a speedy trial, there is no claim by defendant that he was prejudiced in any manner by delay in his preliminary examination. As to defendant's additional claim that the prosecution failed to prove each element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, it is well settled that credibility of witnesses, inferences to be drawn from their testimony, and weight given to such evidence, are purely questions of fact. In this case the trial judge was the trier of the fact and was in the best position to rule on the truthfulness of testimony and the credibility of the defendant. This Court will not substitute its opinion for that of the trial judge.
Defendant's conviction is affirmed.
* ROBERT L. TEMPLIN, Jr., Circuit Judge for County of Oakland,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Deneweth, Docket No. 3085
...Barmore (1962), 368 Mich. 26, 28, 117 N.W.2d 186; People v. Oates (1963), 369 Mich. 214, 119 N.W.2d 530. See, also, People v. Wichman (1968), 13 Mich.App. 650, 164 N.W.2d 681.The interpretation of the power to 'comment' reflected in the Michigan case law parallels that recommended by the Am......
-
People v. Weston
...213 N.W.2d 106 (1973).5 The 12-day period was expanded from the former time of 10 days by 1970 PA 213.6 See, e.g., People v. Wickham, 13 Mich.App. 650, 164 N.W.2d 681 (1968); People v. Linscott, 14 Mich.App. 334, 165 N.W.2d 514 (1968); People v. Spalding, 17 Mich.App. 73, 169 N.W.2d 163 (19......
-
People v. Connors
...speedy examination nor can they now show any prejudice arising from the delay, we find no error requiring reversal. People v. Wickham (1968), 13 Mich.App. 650, 164 N.W.2d 681. Fifth, defendants' claim that they were denied the right to a speedy trial is without merit. The facts show that th......
-
People v. Bersine
...within the statutory period is reversible error only when the defendant can show he was prejudiced by the delay. People v. Wickham, 13 Mich.App. 650, 164 N.W.2d 681 (1968); People v. Connors, 27 Mich.App. 47, 183 N.W.2d 348 (1970); People v. Grasty, 21 Mich.App. 106, 174 N.W.2d 860 (1970). ......