People v. Arither Thomas

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Arither Thomas

151 N.W.2d 186, 7 Mich. App. 103, 1967 Mich. App. LEXIS 544

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 1967

DocketDocket 462

StatusPublished

Cited by33 cases

This text of 151 N.W.2d 186 (People v. Arither Thomas) 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

People v. Arither Thomas, 151 N.W.2d 186, 7 Mich. App. 103, 1967 Mich. App. LEXIS 544 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

J. H. Gillis, J.

Defendant, Arither . Thomas, appeals from his May 28, 1964, conviction of the offense of robbery armed. * On appeal he contends that there was insufficient evidence of his identity to support the jury verdict of guilty upon which this conviction was based.

The record discloses that a witness, Mrs. Shivlie, was present in the store when the holdup occurred; that the defendant was not masked; that this witness had a clear, unobstructed view of the defendant ; and that this witness was able to identify him. Defense counsel attempted to discredit the identification in his argument to the jury. The jury, if it believed the testimony of Mrs. Shivlie, had sufficient grounds to convict the defendant as charged.

It is not the function of an appellate court to be a reviewing jury. People v. Eagger (1966), 4 Mich App 449. Our proper role is to examine the record on appeal to determine whether or not a finding of fact by the jury was supported by credible evidence. In re Petition of Molisak (1939), 291 Mich 46. This Court will not disturb the verdict unless evidence fails to support the finding of fact by the jury. People v. Floyd (1966), 2 Mich App 168. We find that the jury’s verdict in the case before us is amply supported by the evidence.

Affirmed.

Holbrook, P. J., and Fitzgerald, J., concurred.

*

CLS 1961, § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1954 Bev § 28.797).

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

J. H. Gillis, J.

Defendant, Arither . Thomas, appeals from his May 28, 1964, conviction of the offense of robbery armed. * On appeal he contends that there was insufficient evidence of his identity to support the jury verdict of guilty upon which this conviction was based.

The record discloses that a witness, Mrs. Shivlie, was present in the store when the holdup occurred; that the defendant was not masked; that this witness had a clear, unobstructed view of the defendant ; and that this witness was able to identify him. Defense counsel attempted to discredit the identification in his argument to the jury. The jury, if it believed the testimony of Mrs. Shivlie, had sufficient grounds to convict the defendant as charged.

It is not the function of an appellate court to be a reviewing jury. People v. Eagger (1966), 4 Mich App 449. Our proper role is to examine the record on appeal to determine whether or not a finding of fact by the jury was supported by credible evidence. In re Petition of Molisak (1939), 291 Mich 46. This Court will not disturb the verdict unless evidence fails to support the finding of fact by the jury. People v. Floyd (1966), 2 Mich App 168. We find that the jury’s verdict in the case before us is amply supported by the evidence.

Affirmed.

Holbrook, P. J., and Fitzgerald, J., concurred.

*

CLS 1961, § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1954 Bev § 28.797).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 N.W.2d 186, 7 Mich. App. 103, 1967 Mich. App. LEXIS 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arither-thomas-michctapp-1967.

Opinion

J. H. Gillis, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack