People v. Boraders

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Boraders

189 N.W.2d 837, 33 Mich. App. 340, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1765

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 30, 1971

DocketDocket 10463

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 N.W.2d 837 (People v. Boraders) 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. Boraders, 189 N.W.2d 837, 33 Mich. App. 340, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1765 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted of larceny from a motor vehicle, contrary to MCLA § 750.356a (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.588 [1]). His appeal as of right from that conviction is met by the prosecuting attorney’s motion to affirm. GrCR 1963, 817.5(3).

It is manifest that the issues raised, on which decision of the cause depend, are so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission.

Defendant’s right to he present at a public trial was not infringed upon by his alleged inability to hear what transpired during a conference at the bench between the court and counsel for both parties. There was sufficient evidence introduced as to the value and identity of the item stolen from the vehicle.

Defendant’s challenge to a number of the prosecuting attorney’s remarks in closing argument will not he considered on appeal because no objections were made to the remarks at trial. The one remark which defendant did object to was not reversible error where the objection was sustained and the prosecuting attorney did not pursue the matter further. The five allegations of deficiencies in the instructions are not considered on appeal because no request for instructions were made below and because no objections were made to the instructions given or omitted by the trial court.

Finally, the trial court did not err by directing the jury to resume deliberations after they had announced their inability to reach a verdict. People v. Coles (1970), 28 Mich App 300; People v. Springer (1968), 13 Mich App 621.

Motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted of larceny from a motor vehicle, contrary to MCLA § 750.356a (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.588 [1]). His appeal as of right from that conviction is met by the prosecuting attorney’s motion to affirm. GrCR 1963, 817.5(3).

It is manifest that the issues raised, on which decision of the cause depend, are so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission.

Defendant’s right to he present at a public trial was not infringed upon by his alleged inability to hear what transpired during a conference at the bench between the court and counsel for both parties. There was sufficient evidence introduced as to the value and identity of the item stolen from the vehicle.

Defendant’s challenge to a number of the prosecuting attorney’s remarks in closing argument will not he considered on appeal because no objections were made to the remarks at trial. The one remark which defendant did object to was not reversible error where the objection was sustained and the prosecuting attorney did not pursue the matter further. The five allegations of deficiencies in the instructions are not considered on appeal because no request for instructions were made below and because no objections were made to the instructions given or omitted by the trial court.

Finally, the trial court did not err by directing the jury to resume deliberations after they had announced their inability to reach a verdict. People v. Coles (1970), 28 Mich App 300; People v. Springer (1968), 13 Mich App 621.

Motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 N.W.2d 837, 33 Mich. App. 340, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-boraders-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack