People v. Ketzner

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Ketzner

209 N.W.2d 272, 47 Mich. App. 75, 1973 Mich. App. LEXIS 1269

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 22, 1973

DocketDocket No. 10466

StatusPublished

This text of 209 N.W.2d 272 (People v. Ketzner) 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. Ketzner, 209 N.W.2d 272, 47 Mich. App. 75, 1973 Mich. App. LEXIS 1269 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinions

O’Hara, J..

I agree with Judge Holbrook that a jury-submissible case was made by the testimony and exhibits in this case. Fact issues were created and submitted to the jury under a proper charge requiring proof of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I find no basis for disturbing the jury’s verdict of guilty.

As to the claimed legal errors, all of them are within the purview of MCLA 769.26; MSA 28.1096; and GCR 1963, 529.1. The Supreme Court recently held that the statute and court rule are "different articulations of the same idea”. People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 562 (1972). That articulation is:

"No judgment or verdict shall be set aside or reversed or a new trial be granted * * * in any criminal case, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, * * * unless * * * it shall affirmatively appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” MCLA 769.26, supra.

As mandated by Robinson, supra, and the statute itself, I have reviewed the whole record. I cannot find any suggestion that the defendant here did not have a fair trial or was in anywise denied due process. I am mindful in so holding that Robinson reaffirms what has always been the law of this state that the statute and its corollary [78]*78court rule are not cure-alls for error and both must be applied within constitutional limitations. I have considered the constitutional limitations and I do not find that they have been violated as to the defendant herein.

Affirmed.

R. B. Burns, P. J., concurred.

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

O’Hara, J..

I agree with Judge Holbrook that a jury-submissible case was made by the testimony and exhibits in this case. Fact issues were created and submitted to the jury under a proper charge requiring proof of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I find no basis for disturbing the jury’s verdict of guilty.

As to the claimed legal errors, all of them are within the purview of MCLA 769.26; MSA 28.1096; and GCR 1963, 529.1. The Supreme Court recently held that the statute and court rule are "different articulations of the same idea”. People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 562 (1972). That articulation is:

"No judgment or verdict shall be set aside or reversed or a new trial be granted * * * in any criminal case, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, * * * unless * * * it shall affirmatively appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” MCLA 769.26, supra.

As mandated by Robinson, supra, and the statute itself, I have reviewed the whole record. I cannot find any suggestion that the defendant here did not have a fair trial or was in anywise denied due process. I am mindful in so holding that Robinson reaffirms what has always been the law of this state that the statute and its corollary [78]*78court rule are not cure-alls for error and both must be applied within constitutional limitations. I have considered the constitutional limitations and I do not find that they have been violated as to the defendant herein.

Affirmed.

R. B. Burns, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 N.W.2d 272, 47 Mich. App. 75, 1973 Mich. App. LEXIS 1269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ketzner-michctapp-1973.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack