People v. Bukoski

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Bukoski

193 N.W.2d 425, 36 Mich. App. 171, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1294

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 29, 1971

DocketDocket No. 11045

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 193 N.W.2d 425 (People v. Bukoski) 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. Bukoski, 193 N.W.2d 425, 36 Mich. App. 171, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1294 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendants were jointly tried before a jury and convicted on the charge of obstructing a police officer while attempting to perform his duty.¹ The defendants were sentenced to pay a $100 fine and $50 in court costs. Also, each of the defendants was placed on a one-year term of probation, the first 30 days of that period to be served in the county jail. A timely claim of appeal was filed and by order of the circuit court judge, an appeal bond was granted. The people have filed a motion to affirm the convictions and sentences.

The sole issue raised by the defendants is that the prosecutor committed reversible error when he represented facts contained in his closing argument as being “uncontroverted”. This issue is without merit because the defense counsel at no time objected to the statement of the prosecutor. In People v. Humphreys (1970), 24 Mich App 411, 414, 415, we said:

“A conviction will not be reversed, however, if by failing to object, the defendant has allowed the impact of the prosecutor’s remarks to go uncountered by an instruction. People v. David Smith (1969), 16 Mich App 198. The defendant will not be heard to complain of an error that could have been cured upon timely objection.”

It is clear that the foregoing allegation of error could have been cured by a timely instruction and was not otherwise prejudicial.

The motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendants were jointly tried before a jury and convicted on the charge of obstructing a police officer while attempting to perform his duty.¹ The defendants were sentenced to pay a $100 fine and $50 in court costs. Also, each of the defendants was placed on a one-year term of probation, the first 30 days of that period to be served in the county jail. A timely claim of appeal was filed and by order of the circuit court judge, an appeal bond was granted. The people have filed a motion to affirm the convictions and sentences.

The sole issue raised by the defendants is that the prosecutor committed reversible error when he represented facts contained in his closing argument as being “uncontroverted”. This issue is without merit because the defense counsel at no time objected to the statement of the prosecutor. In People v. Humphreys (1970), 24 Mich App 411, 414, 415, we said:

“A conviction will not be reversed, however, if by failing to object, the defendant has allowed the impact of the prosecutor’s remarks to go uncountered by an instruction. People v. David Smith (1969), 16 Mich App 198. The defendant will not be heard to complain of an error that could have been cured upon timely objection.”

It is clear that the foregoing allegation of error could have been cured by a timely instruction and was not otherwise prejudicial.

The motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 N.W.2d 425, 36 Mich. App. 171, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bukoski-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack