People v. Green

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Green

165 N.W.2d 270, 14 Mich. App. 250, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 887

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 25, 1968

DocketDocket 4,018

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 165 N.W.2d 270 (People v. Green) 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. Green, 165 N.W.2d 270, 14 Mich. App. 250, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 887 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A jury adjudged defendants guilty of sodomy 1 for a particularly detestable incident in the Genesee county jail. Citing no authority,' defendants contend that the Michigan sodomy statute is unconstitutionally vague. The statute contains the common-law definition of sodomy, and Michigan decisions have delineated the crime’s elements. People v. Schmitt (1936), 275 Mich 575; People v. Dexter (1967), 6 Mich App 247. Since the crime is of an indelicate nature, it cannot be said that the failure to graphically outline the acts encompassed by the crime of sodomy causes the statute to be unconstitutionally vague. Similarly, defendants’ argument that the indictment did not adequately inform them of the crime charged is unsubstantial considering the crime’s nature and that the statute’s common-law definition automatically gives notice of the criminal elements of sodomy. See 81 CJS, Sodomy § 4, 374. Moreover, defendants did not object to the information before trial, and therefore, waived any alleged error. CL 1948, § 767.76 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev §28.1016).

Defendants also claim that the trial court erred by not immediately instructing the jury of the purpose of the prosecutor’s inquiry as to prior convic *252 tions, citing People v. Askar (1967), 8 Mich App 95. The Ashar holding is factually distinguishable, and its limited scope neither applies here nor establishes a general rule requiring immediate jury instruction when the use of the prior convictions is, as here, for impeachment of credibility. In addition, the subject of defendants’ prior convictions was first brought out by defense counsel on direct examination.

Defendants’ final arguments are clearly without merit and, therefore, do not require our expatiation. No reversible error was committed.

Affirmed.

McGregor, P. J., and Quinn and Letts, JJ., concurred.

1

OLS 1961, § 750.158 (Stat Ann 1962 Rey § 28.355).

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

Per Curiam.

A jury adjudged defendants guilty of sodomy 1 for a particularly detestable incident in the Genesee county jail. Citing no authority,' defendants contend that the Michigan sodomy statute is unconstitutionally vague. The statute contains the common-law definition of sodomy, and Michigan decisions have delineated the crime’s elements. People v. Schmitt (1936), 275 Mich 575; People v. Dexter (1967), 6 Mich App 247. Since the crime is of an indelicate nature, it cannot be said that the failure to graphically outline the acts encompassed by the crime of sodomy causes the statute to be unconstitutionally vague. Similarly, defendants’ argument that the indictment did not adequately inform them of the crime charged is unsubstantial considering the crime’s nature and that the statute’s common-law definition automatically gives notice of the criminal elements of sodomy. See 81 CJS, Sodomy § 4, 374. Moreover, defendants did not object to the information before trial, and therefore, waived any alleged error. CL 1948, § 767.76 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev §28.1016).

Defendants also claim that the trial court erred by not immediately instructing the jury of the purpose of the prosecutor’s inquiry as to prior convic *252 tions, citing People v. Askar (1967), 8 Mich App 95. The Ashar holding is factually distinguishable, and its limited scope neither applies here nor establishes a general rule requiring immediate jury instruction when the use of the prior convictions is, as here, for impeachment of credibility. In addition, the subject of defendants’ prior convictions was first brought out by defense counsel on direct examination.

Defendants’ final arguments are clearly without merit and, therefore, do not require our expatiation. No reversible error was committed.

Affirmed.

McGregor, P. J., and Quinn and Letts, JJ., concurred.

1

OLS 1961, § 750.158 (Stat Ann 1962 Rey § 28.355).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 N.W.2d 270, 14 Mich. App. 250, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-green-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack