People v. Jimmie Ragland

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Jimmie Ragland

192 N.W.2d 73, 34 Mich. App. 673, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1669

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 28, 1971

DocketDocket 10211

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 192 N.W.2d 73 (People v. Jimmie Ragland) 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. Jimmie Ragland, 192 N.W.2d 73, 34 Mich. App. 673, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1669 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendants Jimmie and Norman Ragland were found guilty of second degree murder; 1 *3defendants Johnnie and Jessie Ragland were found guilty of manslaughter. 2 The people have filed a motion to affirm pursuant to GCR 1963, 817-.5(3).

Defendants Jimmie and Norman Ragland did not make a motion for a new trial and are here attacking the weight of the evidence. Not having made the requisite motion, that issue is foreclosed from review. People v. Mattison (1970), 26 Mich App 453. Defendants Johnnie and Jessie Ragland also failed to move for a new trial, but this does not prevent them from pressing their claim that the evidence was legally insufficient. They were charged as accessories, the people contending that they aided and abetted the commission of this homicide. 3 While there is no evidence that either Johnnie or Jessie actually shot the deceased, they were involved throughout; and there was certainly enough evidence to go to the jury under the standard of People v. Hogan (1967), 9 Mich App 78.

*675 A complete review of the transcript in this case reveals that the questions presented are so insubstantial as to warrant no argument or formal submission.

Accordingly, the people’s motion to affirm is granted.

1

MCLA § 750.317 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549).

2

MCLA § 750.321 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.553).

3

MCLA § 767.39 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.979).

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

Per Curiam.

Defendants Jimmie and Norman Ragland were found guilty of second degree murder; 1 *3defendants Johnnie and Jessie Ragland were found guilty of manslaughter. 2 The people have filed a motion to affirm pursuant to GCR 1963, 817-.5(3).

Defendants Jimmie and Norman Ragland did not make a motion for a new trial and are here attacking the weight of the evidence. Not having made the requisite motion, that issue is foreclosed from review. People v. Mattison (1970), 26 Mich App 453. Defendants Johnnie and Jessie Ragland also failed to move for a new trial, but this does not prevent them from pressing their claim that the evidence was legally insufficient. They were charged as accessories, the people contending that they aided and abetted the commission of this homicide. 3 While there is no evidence that either Johnnie or Jessie actually shot the deceased, they were involved throughout; and there was certainly enough evidence to go to the jury under the standard of People v. Hogan (1967), 9 Mich App 78.

*675 A complete review of the transcript in this case reveals that the questions presented are so insubstantial as to warrant no argument or formal submission.

Accordingly, the people’s motion to affirm is granted.

1

MCLA § 750.317 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549).

2

MCLA § 750.321 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.553).

3

MCLA § 767.39 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.979).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 N.W.2d 73, 34 Mich. App. 673, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jimmie-ragland-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack