People v. Casey

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Casey

172 N.W.2d 490, 19 Mich. App. 347, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 952

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 1, 1969

DocketDocket No. 5,802

StatusPublished

This text of 172 N.W.2d 490 (People v. Casey) 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. Casey, 172 N.W.2d 490, 19 Mich. App. 347, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 952 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause is submitted on the people’s motion to affirm (GCR 1963, 817.5[3]). The defendant was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder (CL 1948, § 750.317 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549]), and appeals as of right. The brief on appeal argues that certain remarks by the prosecutor during closing argument were disparaging and warrant reversal despite lack of an objection at trial.

The remarks were not so flagrantly improper or inherently prejudicial as to call for an exception to the rule that failure to object or request a curative instruction precludes assignment of error on appeal. 2 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law & Procedure (2d ed), § 627, p 813.

The motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

This cause is submitted on the people’s motion to affirm (GCR 1963, 817.5[3]). The defendant was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder (CL 1948, § 750.317 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549]), and appeals as of right. The brief on appeal argues that certain remarks by the prosecutor during closing argument were disparaging and warrant reversal despite lack of an objection at trial.

The remarks were not so flagrantly improper or inherently prejudicial as to call for an exception to the rule that failure to object or request a curative instruction precludes assignment of error on appeal. 2 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law & Procedure (2d ed), § 627, p 813.

The motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 N.W.2d 490, 19 Mich. App. 347, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-casey-michctapp-1969.