People v. Kendrick

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Kendrick

38 Mich. App. 272

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 18, 1972

DocketDocket No. 10768

StatusPublished

This text of 38 Mich. App. 272 (People v. Kendrick) 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. Kendrick, 38 Mich. App. 272 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Opinion.

Defendant appeals his conviction of larceny in a building contrary to MCLA 750.360; MSA 28.592.

Defendant first contends that the trial court’s instructions as to the elements of the crime were in error. However, since no objection was registered against the instructions as given, we will not consider the question on appeal. GCR 1963, 516.2.

Defendant also contends that the prosecutor’s closing remarks were improper. Since the remarks were not objected to below, the issue is not properly preserved for appeal unless a showing of a miscarriage of justice can be made. People v Thomas Smith, 30 Mich App 34, 37 (1971). Our review of the record reveals that the remarks were neither improper nor prejudicial because they were related to the evidence at trial. See People v Humphreys, 24 Mich App 411, 414 (1970).

Affirmed.

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

Memorandum: Opinion.

Defendant appeals his conviction of larceny in a building contrary to MCLA 750.360; MSA 28.592.

Defendant first contends that the trial court’s instructions as to the elements of the crime were in error. However, since no objection was registered against the instructions as given, we will not consider the question on appeal. GCR 1963, 516.2.

Defendant also contends that the prosecutor’s closing remarks were improper. Since the remarks were not objected to below, the issue is not properly preserved for appeal unless a showing of a miscarriage of justice can be made. People v Thomas Smith, 30 Mich App 34, 37 (1971). Our review of the record reveals that the remarks were neither improper nor prejudicial because they were related to the evidence at trial. See People v Humphreys, 24 Mich App 411, 414 (1970).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Mich. App. 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kendrick-michctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack