People v. Brazelton

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Brazelton

192 N.W.2d 645, 35 Mich. App. 427

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 30, 1971

DocketDocket No. 11458

StatusPublished

This text of 192 N.W.2d 645 (People v. Brazelton) 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. Brazelton, 192 N.W.2d 645, 35 Mich. App. 427 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Cdriam.

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of rape. MCLA § 750.520 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.788). His motion for a new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence was denied. He has appealed as of right.

The complaining witness was positive in her identification of the defendant. Her detailed testimony, if believed by the jury, was clearly sufficient evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Cdriam.

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of rape. MCLA § 750.520 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.788). His motion for a new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence was denied. He has appealed as of right.

The complaining witness was positive in her identification of the defendant. Her detailed testimony, if believed by the jury, was clearly sufficient evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 N.W.2d 645, 35 Mich. App. 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brazelton-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack