City of Detroit v. Ritchey

Michigan Court of Appeals

City of Detroit v. Ritchey

181 N.W.2d 87, 25 Mich. App. 98, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1517

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1970

DocketDocket No. 4,866

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 181 N.W.2d 87 (City of Detroit v. Ritchey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Detroit v. Ritchey, 181 N.W.2d 87, 25 Mich. App. 98, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1517 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of loitering in the City of Detroit in violation of a Detroit city ordinance.

* Upon appeal, she questions the constitutionality of the ordinance and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

The first challenge has already been answered by this Court. We have determined that:

“The ordinance does not prohibit standing on a sidewalk, but only standing on a sidewalk so as to hinder or impede pedestrian traffic. Thus the Detroit loitering ordinance achieves its obvious regulatory purpose of keeping sidewalks clear and is not unconstitutionally broad or vague.” City of Detroit v. Wedlow (1969), 17 Mich App 134, 139.

A review of the transcript establishes that there was testimony before the jury which supported the jury’s verdict. A reviewing court will not weigh evidence anew. People v. Eagger (1966), 4 Mich App 449. Because there is evidence upon the record which supports the jury verdict, and the record is free of constitutional error, this case must be affirmed. People v. Danles (1969), 15 Mich App 510.

We are satisfied that defendant was fairly tried. Other issues raised are without merit.

Affirmed.

Detroit City Ordinance 780 (§58-1-10 of tlie Detroit City Code).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI