People v. Craig

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Craig

170 N.W.2d 919, 18 Mich. App. 354, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1078

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 28, 1969

DocketDocket No. 6,730

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 170 N.W.2d 919 (People v. Craig) 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. Craig, 170 N.W.2d 919, 18 Mich. App. 354, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1078 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant Edgar Milton Craig was convicted of murder in the first degree by a jury in Recorder’s Court of Detroit on July 26, 1968. CL 1948, § 750.316 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.548). On appeal he raises three issues, two objecting to instructions and the third claiming error because the court accepted a people’s request to charge after final argument. The people have filed a motion to affirm the conviction.

*

No objections to the instructions were made at trial, as required by GCR 1963, 516.2, and therefore this asserted error may not be raised in this Court for the first time unless it appears that justice so requires. People v. Keiswetter (1967), 7 Mich App 334, 342. An examination of the brief, the motion to affirm and the record convinces us that justice does not require further consideration of the instructions in question. The third issue is without merit for the reason that a request to charge is timely if presented to the court before the case is submitted to the jury. Morrison v. W. R. Reynolds & Co. (1923), 224 Mich 61, 65. The questions presented here on appeal are unsubstantial and require no formal argument or submission.

The motion to affirm defendant’s conviction is granted.

GCR 1963, 817.5

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant Edgar Milton Craig was convicted of murder in the first degree by a jury in Recorder’s Court of Detroit on July 26, 1968. CL 1948, § 750.316 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.548). On appeal he raises three issues, two objecting to instructions and the third claiming error because the court accepted a people’s request to charge after final argument. The people have filed a motion to affirm the conviction.

*

No objections to the instructions were made at trial, as required by GCR 1963, 516.2, and therefore this asserted error may not be raised in this Court for the first time unless it appears that justice so requires. People v. Keiswetter (1967), 7 Mich App 334, 342. An examination of the brief, the motion to affirm and the record convinces us that justice does not require further consideration of the instructions in question. The third issue is without merit for the reason that a request to charge is timely if presented to the court before the case is submitted to the jury. Morrison v. W. R. Reynolds & Co. (1923), 224 Mich 61, 65. The questions presented here on appeal are unsubstantial and require no formal argument or submission.

The motion to affirm defendant’s conviction is granted.

GCR 1963, 817.5

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 N.W.2d 919, 18 Mich. App. 354, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-craig-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack