People v. Grasty

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Grasty

174 N.W.2d 860, 21 Mich. App. 106, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 2041

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 26, 1970

DocketDocket 5,630

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 174 N.W.2d 860 (People v. Grasty) 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. Grasty, 174 N.W.2d 860, 21 Mich. App. 106, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 2041 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Convicted by a jury and sentenced for assault with intent to rob and steal being armed, * defendant appeals on the basis of three alleged reversible errors.

Defendant was arraigned on the warrant January 12, 1967, at which time his preliminary examination was set for January 27, 1967. Defendant contends this violated the mandatory requirement of MCLA § 766.4 (Stat Ann 1954 Eev § 28.922) that examination be set not exceeding ten days after arraignment on the warrant, and that this violation constitutes reversible error.

There is nothing in the record to indicate why the magistrate set the preliminary examination 15 days after defendant was arraigned on the warrant. Failure to comply with the statutory ten-day requirement above mentioned was error, hut it was a procedural error and it is not reversible error unless a miscarriage of justice resulted from it. People v. Collins (1968), 380 Mich 131.

Defendant was tried March 18, 1967, so he was not denied a speedy trial. He has demonstrated no prejudice to him by the five-day delay. This Court has recently held that a delay of the type presented *108 here is not reversible error. See People v. Linscott (1968), 14 Mich App 334.

On the basis of an eseerpt taken from the prosecuting attorney’s rebuttal argument to the jury, defendant claims a violation of the rule against “golden rule” jury argument, namely: asking the jury to place itself in the position of the complainant. Assuming the argument was objectionable, it was not objected to and it is not properly before this Court. People v. Hider (1968), 12 Mich App 526. The language complained of is not as objectionable as that approved in People v. Laker (1967), 7 Mich App 425.

Finally, defendant urges as reversible error the trial judge’s efforts to correct an improper verdict as announced by the jury foreman. We find that the trial judge was not only justified to, he was obligated to obtain an accurate verdict, People v. George Baker (1967), 7 Mich App 7.

Affirmed.

*

MCLA § 750.89 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.284).

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

Per Curiam.

Convicted by a jury and sentenced for assault with intent to rob and steal being armed, * defendant appeals on the basis of three alleged reversible errors.

Defendant was arraigned on the warrant January 12, 1967, at which time his preliminary examination was set for January 27, 1967. Defendant contends this violated the mandatory requirement of MCLA § 766.4 (Stat Ann 1954 Eev § 28.922) that examination be set not exceeding ten days after arraignment on the warrant, and that this violation constitutes reversible error.

There is nothing in the record to indicate why the magistrate set the preliminary examination 15 days after defendant was arraigned on the warrant. Failure to comply with the statutory ten-day requirement above mentioned was error, hut it was a procedural error and it is not reversible error unless a miscarriage of justice resulted from it. People v. Collins (1968), 380 Mich 131.

Defendant was tried March 18, 1967, so he was not denied a speedy trial. He has demonstrated no prejudice to him by the five-day delay. This Court has recently held that a delay of the type presented *108 here is not reversible error. See People v. Linscott (1968), 14 Mich App 334.

On the basis of an eseerpt taken from the prosecuting attorney’s rebuttal argument to the jury, defendant claims a violation of the rule against “golden rule” jury argument, namely: asking the jury to place itself in the position of the complainant. Assuming the argument was objectionable, it was not objected to and it is not properly before this Court. People v. Hider (1968), 12 Mich App 526. The language complained of is not as objectionable as that approved in People v. Laker (1967), 7 Mich App 425.

Finally, defendant urges as reversible error the trial judge’s efforts to correct an improper verdict as announced by the jury foreman. We find that the trial judge was not only justified to, he was obligated to obtain an accurate verdict, People v. George Baker (1967), 7 Mich App 7.

Affirmed.

*

MCLA § 750.89 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.284).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 N.W.2d 860, 21 Mich. App. 106, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 2041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-grasty-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack