People v. Fortuna

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Fortuna

13 Mich. App. 245

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 23, 1968

DocketDocket No. 3,460

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 Mich. App. 245 (People v. Fortuna) 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. Fortuna, 13 Mich. App. 245 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Oil leave granted, defendant appeals his jury conviction and sentence for violation of CL 1948, § 750.110, as amended by PA 1964, No 133 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 28.305). Defendant states the only question involved as: “Was the great weight of evidence as presented at the time of trial sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt?”, but in addition, he also attacks the charge of the trial court.

A review of the trial record reveals facts established by direct or circumstantial evidence which, together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and negate all reasonable theories consistent with defendant’s innocence. This complies with the test set forth in People v. Spann (1966), 3 Mich App 444.

At trial, defendant not only failed to object to the charge of the court as required by GCÉ 1963, 516.2, he stated affirmatively his belief that the instruction was adequate.

Affirmed.

Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Moody, JJ., concurred.

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

Per Curiam.

Oil leave granted, defendant appeals his jury conviction and sentence for violation of CL 1948, § 750.110, as amended by PA 1964, No 133 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 28.305). Defendant states the only question involved as: “Was the great weight of evidence as presented at the time of trial sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt?”, but in addition, he also attacks the charge of the trial court.

A review of the trial record reveals facts established by direct or circumstantial evidence which, together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and negate all reasonable theories consistent with defendant’s innocence. This complies with the test set forth in People v. Spann (1966), 3 Mich App 444.

At trial, defendant not only failed to object to the charge of the court as required by GCÉ 1963, 516.2, he stated affirmatively his belief that the instruction was adequate.

Affirmed.

Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Moody, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Mich. App. 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fortuna-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack