People v. Gibson

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Gibson

181 N.W.2d 633, 25 Mich. App. 622, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1621

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 31, 1970

DocketDocket 7,227

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 181 N.W.2d 633 (People v. Gibson) 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. Gibson, 181 N.W.2d 633, 25 Mich. App. 622, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1621 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted of breaking and entering a doctor’s office with intent to commit a larceny therein. MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.305). At trial, the complaining witness testified, over defense counsel’s objection, that, after the break-in, defendant came to him and asked that he not press charges because defendant had a had criminal record. After reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the witness’s remark was not anticipated or pressed for by the prosecutor. Under such circumstances, a new trial need not result where, as here, the trial court applies the proper corrective. People v. Smith (1970), 22 Mich App 133; People v. Podsiad (1940), 295 Mich 541; People v. Rozewicz (1924), 228 Mich 231.

Error also is claimed as to an unresponsive remark by an employee of the complaining witness, who discovered the defendant in the doctor’s office. At trial, she was relating the events at the doctor’s office, wherein she encountered the defendant and the defendant allegedly told her that he was merely investigating the break-in. The witness then rhetorically asked, “Why did he have on gloves, if that’s *624 what he did?” Although error, we have examined the trial transcript and find that the other evidence of defendant’s guilt is substantial and that no miscarriage of justice has resulted from the witness’s unresponsive testimony. CL 1948, § 769.26 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1096).

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted of breaking and entering a doctor’s office with intent to commit a larceny therein. MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.305). At trial, the complaining witness testified, over defense counsel’s objection, that, after the break-in, defendant came to him and asked that he not press charges because defendant had a had criminal record. After reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the witness’s remark was not anticipated or pressed for by the prosecutor. Under such circumstances, a new trial need not result where, as here, the trial court applies the proper corrective. People v. Smith (1970), 22 Mich App 133; People v. Podsiad (1940), 295 Mich 541; People v. Rozewicz (1924), 228 Mich 231.

Error also is claimed as to an unresponsive remark by an employee of the complaining witness, who discovered the defendant in the doctor’s office. At trial, she was relating the events at the doctor’s office, wherein she encountered the defendant and the defendant allegedly told her that he was merely investigating the break-in. The witness then rhetorically asked, “Why did he have on gloves, if that’s *624 what he did?” Although error, we have examined the trial transcript and find that the other evidence of defendant’s guilt is substantial and that no miscarriage of justice has resulted from the witness’s unresponsive testimony. CL 1948, § 769.26 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1096).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 N.W.2d 633, 25 Mich. App. 622, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gibson-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack