People v. Giddens

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Giddens

171 N.W.2d 596, 18 Mich. App. 588, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1117

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 25, 1969

DocketDocket 5,742

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 171 N.W.2d 596 (People v. Giddens) 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. Giddens, 171 N.W.2d 596, 18 Mich. App. 588, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1117 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This: case is submitted, on the people’s motion to affirm. Edgar Giddens, Jr., was convicted by a jury of the crime of robbery unarmed in violation of MCLA § 750.530 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.798), and on February 28, 1968, he was sentenced to 3-1/2 to 15 years in prison.

The case presents two questions: first, did the lower court err in failing to instruct the jury, in response to defense counsel’s request, regarding the offense of attempted robbery? Second, were certain comments by the prosecuting attorney, during closing argument, so prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair and impartial trial?

A review of defendant’s brief, the motion to affirm, and the transcript of the trial discloses that the court properly denied defendant’s requested instruction. The court instructed the jury regarding the offenses of unarmed robbery, assault with the intent to rob and steal being unarmed, larceny from a person, and assault and battery. The failure to instruct the jury regarding attempted robbery was proper as there was no evidence to support such an instruction. People v. Stevens (1968), 9 Mich App 531.

Defendant’s second allegation of error, pertaining to the prosecuting attorney’s statements during closing argument, was not preserved for appeal since no objection was made. People y. Hider *590 (1968), 12 Mich App 526; People v. Zesk (1944), 309 Mich 129; and People v. Goldberg (1929), 248 Mich 553. Moreover, the record discloses no miscarriage of justice. The statements made were not as highly inflammatory as those found in People v. Ignofo (1946), 315 Mich 626, People v. Holmes (1940), 292 Mich 212, or People v. Kelsey (1942) 303 Mich 715, which resulted in prejudicial error requiring reversal even in the absence of objection in the lower court.

Motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

This: case is submitted, on the people’s motion to affirm. Edgar Giddens, Jr., was convicted by a jury of the crime of robbery unarmed in violation of MCLA § 750.530 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.798), and on February 28, 1968, he was sentenced to 3-1/2 to 15 years in prison.

The case presents two questions: first, did the lower court err in failing to instruct the jury, in response to defense counsel’s request, regarding the offense of attempted robbery? Second, were certain comments by the prosecuting attorney, during closing argument, so prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair and impartial trial?

A review of defendant’s brief, the motion to affirm, and the transcript of the trial discloses that the court properly denied defendant’s requested instruction. The court instructed the jury regarding the offenses of unarmed robbery, assault with the intent to rob and steal being unarmed, larceny from a person, and assault and battery. The failure to instruct the jury regarding attempted robbery was proper as there was no evidence to support such an instruction. People v. Stevens (1968), 9 Mich App 531.

Defendant’s second allegation of error, pertaining to the prosecuting attorney’s statements during closing argument, was not preserved for appeal since no objection was made. People y. Hider *590 (1968), 12 Mich App 526; People v. Zesk (1944), 309 Mich 129; and People v. Goldberg (1929), 248 Mich 553. Moreover, the record discloses no miscarriage of justice. The statements made were not as highly inflammatory as those found in People v. Ignofo (1946), 315 Mich 626, People v. Holmes (1940), 292 Mich 212, or People v. Kelsey (1942) 303 Mich 715, which resulted in prejudicial error requiring reversal even in the absence of objection in the lower court.

Motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 N.W.2d 596, 18 Mich. App. 588, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-giddens-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack