People v. Goldsby

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Goldsby

168 N.W.2d 642, 17 Mich. App. 16, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1139

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 1969

DocketDocket 5,946

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 168 N.W.2d 642 (People v. Goldsby) 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. Goldsby, 168 N.W.2d 642, 17 Mich. App. 16, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1139 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

*17 Per Curiam.

Defendant was found guilty of robbery armed, CL 1948 § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.797), by a jury, and was sentenced. On appeal he contends that his guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, challenging the testimony identifying him as the person who committed the offense. The record contains testimony of the complaining witness which positively identified the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery. It is the province of the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. People v. Roney (1967), 7 Mich App 678. Since the verdict is not contrary to the great weight of the testimony, this Court will not disturb the jury’s findings of disputed questions of fact. People v. Cleveland (1940), 295 Mich 139.

Appellant also contends the trial judge committed reversible error by instructing the jury, “And if you, of course, are not satisfied that he has been properly identified in this case, your verdict, likewise, would be guilty.” It is obvious from a reading of the transcript of the charge that this was an inadvertent misstatement by the trial judge. The charge to the jury must be read in its entirety to determine whether this misstatement denied the defendant a fair trial. People v. Serra (1942), 301 Mich 124; People v. McIntosh (1967), 6 Mich App 62. A reading discloses that the trial judge correctly stated the instruction just before making the statement of which appellant complains; therefore, the misstatement was not prejudicial. In context, the error does not dictate reversal.

Affirmed.

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

*17 Per Curiam.

Defendant was found guilty of robbery armed, CL 1948 § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.797), by a jury, and was sentenced. On appeal he contends that his guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, challenging the testimony identifying him as the person who committed the offense. The record contains testimony of the complaining witness which positively identified the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery. It is the province of the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. People v. Roney (1967), 7 Mich App 678. Since the verdict is not contrary to the great weight of the testimony, this Court will not disturb the jury’s findings of disputed questions of fact. People v. Cleveland (1940), 295 Mich 139.

Appellant also contends the trial judge committed reversible error by instructing the jury, “And if you, of course, are not satisfied that he has been properly identified in this case, your verdict, likewise, would be guilty.” It is obvious from a reading of the transcript of the charge that this was an inadvertent misstatement by the trial judge. The charge to the jury must be read in its entirety to determine whether this misstatement denied the defendant a fair trial. People v. Serra (1942), 301 Mich 124; People v. McIntosh (1967), 6 Mich App 62. A reading discloses that the trial judge correctly stated the instruction just before making the statement of which appellant complains; therefore, the misstatement was not prejudicial. In context, the error does not dictate reversal.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.W.2d 642, 17 Mich. App. 16, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-goldsby-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack