People v. Biles

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Biles

192 N.W.2d 686, 35 Mich. App. 324, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1453

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 28, 1971

DocketDocket No. 8610

StatusPublished

This text of 192 N.W.2d 686 (People v. Biles) 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. Biles, 192 N.W.2d 686, 35 Mich. App. 324, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1453 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree, a violation of MCLA § 750.317 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549). On appeal she alleges three errors. First, that sufficient evidence was not presented from which the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubt. A review of the record in this matter convinces this Court that such evidence was presented, and we find no basis for reversal on this issue. The defend[325]*325ant’s second contention of error is that the trial judge did not properly instruct the jury on the law in this case. No objections were raised to the charge at the close of trial although an opportunity was presented. Error raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered unless clear injustice is demonstrated. People v. Ray Clifton Smith (1969), 20 Mich App 243. We have read the charge and, considering the instructions as a whole, we find there was no reversible error, and conclude that no injustice has been shown. The defendant’s sentence being within the statutory maximum, this Court is not at liberty to review or alter that sentence. People v. Pate (1965), 2 Mich App 66.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree, a violation of MCLA § 750.317 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549). On appeal she alleges three errors. First, that sufficient evidence was not presented from which the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubt. A review of the record in this matter convinces this Court that such evidence was presented, and we find no basis for reversal on this issue. The defend[325]*325ant’s second contention of error is that the trial judge did not properly instruct the jury on the law in this case. No objections were raised to the charge at the close of trial although an opportunity was presented. Error raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered unless clear injustice is demonstrated. People v. Ray Clifton Smith (1969), 20 Mich App 243. We have read the charge and, considering the instructions as a whole, we find there was no reversible error, and conclude that no injustice has been shown. The defendant’s sentence being within the statutory maximum, this Court is not at liberty to review or alter that sentence. People v. Pate (1965), 2 Mich App 66.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 N.W.2d 686, 35 Mich. App. 324, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-biles-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack