People v. Duncan

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Duncan

190 N.W.2d 719, 34 Mich. App. 132, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1581

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 27, 1971

DocketDocket No. 10436

StatusPublished

This text of 190 N.W.2d 719 (People v. Duncan) 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. Duncan, 190 N.W.2d 719, 34 Mich. App. 132, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1581 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was charged under the habitual criminal act with having been convicted of four felonies. MCLA § 769.12 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1084). He was convicted as charged by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal he alleges that the evidence does not sustain the verdict [133]*133of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The people have filed a motion to affirm.

The reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury which heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor. People v. Eagger (1966) , 4 Mich App 449; People v. Arither Thomas (1967) , 7 Mich App 103; People v. Panknin (1966), 4 Mich App 19. The jury had sufficient credible evidence before it to warrant a finding of guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubt. It is manifest that the question presented herein is unsubstantial and, therefore, requires no argument or formal submission.

The 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 charged under the habitual criminal act with having been convicted of four felonies. MCLA § 769.12 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1084). He was convicted as charged by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal he alleges that the evidence does not sustain the verdict [133]*133of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The people have filed a motion to affirm.

The reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury which heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor. People v. Eagger (1966) , 4 Mich App 449; People v. Arither Thomas (1967) , 7 Mich App 103; People v. Panknin (1966), 4 Mich App 19. The jury had sufficient credible evidence before it to warrant a finding of guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubt. It is manifest that the question presented herein is unsubstantial and, therefore, requires no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 N.W.2d 719, 34 Mich. App. 132, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-duncan-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack