People v. Jeter

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Jeter

175 N.W.2d 39, 21 Mich. App. 158, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 2060

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 1970

DocketDocket 6,624

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 175 N.W.2d 39 (People v. Jeter) 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. Jeter, 175 N.W.2d 39, 21 Mich. App. 158, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 2060 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

*159 Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted in a non-jury trial of committing rape. MCLA § 750.520 (Stat Ann 1954 Eev § 28.788). On appeal, defendant argues (1) that the record fails to show that the prosecutrix exercised the required degree of resistance against her alleged attacker; (2) that, due to prior consumption of alcohol and drugs, defendant did not possess the requisite criminal intent at the time of the alleged offense; and (3) that the trial court erred in refusing to hear defense counsel’s argument on the question of defendant’s intent.

A review of the record reveals that sufficient competent evidence was presented at trial to support the court’s determination that the defendant, was guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Considered in its entirety, the testimony of the prosecutrix, if believed, shows that her will ivas overcome by fear of the defendant. See People v. Myers (1943), 306 Mich 100; People v. McComb (1969), 16 Mich App 757. The trial judge heard all the testimony and was free to reject defendant’s testimony as to his condition at the time of the offense, to accord it little weight, or to find against defendant in spite of his testimony. People v. Ritzema (1966), 3 Mich App 637. This Court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court on a finding 'of fact, unless the evidence clearly preponderates in a direction opposite the finding by the trial court. People v. Doris White (1965), 2 Mich App 104. No such showing was made on the record before us.

Defendant’s third assignment of error' is: without foundation in the record. The record reveals that defense counsel did, in fact, present argument tó the court on defendant’s intent.

Affirmed.

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

*159 Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted in a non-jury trial of committing rape. MCLA § 750.520 (Stat Ann 1954 Eev § 28.788). On appeal, defendant argues (1) that the record fails to show that the prosecutrix exercised the required degree of resistance against her alleged attacker; (2) that, due to prior consumption of alcohol and drugs, defendant did not possess the requisite criminal intent at the time of the alleged offense; and (3) that the trial court erred in refusing to hear defense counsel’s argument on the question of defendant’s intent.

A review of the record reveals that sufficient competent evidence was presented at trial to support the court’s determination that the defendant, was guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Considered in its entirety, the testimony of the prosecutrix, if believed, shows that her will ivas overcome by fear of the defendant. See People v. Myers (1943), 306 Mich 100; People v. McComb (1969), 16 Mich App 757. The trial judge heard all the testimony and was free to reject defendant’s testimony as to his condition at the time of the offense, to accord it little weight, or to find against defendant in spite of his testimony. People v. Ritzema (1966), 3 Mich App 637. This Court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court on a finding 'of fact, unless the evidence clearly preponderates in a direction opposite the finding by the trial court. People v. Doris White (1965), 2 Mich App 104. No such showing was made on the record before us.

Defendant’s third assignment of error' is: without foundation in the record. The record reveals that defense counsel did, in fact, present argument tó the court on defendant’s intent.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 N.W.2d 39, 21 Mich. App. 158, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 2060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jeter-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack