People v. Laine

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Laine

187 N.W.2d 505, 31 Mich. App. 271, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2079

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 26, 1971

DocketDocket 9693

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 187 N.W.2d 505 (People v. Laine) 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. Laine, 187 N.W.2d 505, 31 Mich. App. 271, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2079 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant Norman Laine, charged with unarmed robbery, 1 was convicted upon a jury verdict and sentenced to 7 to 15 years in prison. Taking an appeal as of right, defendant raises three issues.

First, defendant contends it was error 2 for the trial judge to instruct the jury that they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed, that it was committed by the codefendants, and that defendant Norman Laine either aided, assisted, procured, or counseled the codefendants in its commission. It is true, by virtue of MCLA § 767.39 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.979), that the distinction between principal and accessory has been removed. However, though conviction of the principal is no longer necessary to charge the accessory, the guilt of the principal must still be shown. See, People v. Tunnacliff (1965), 375 Mich 298, 301; People v. DeBolt (1934), 269 Mich 39; People v. Hoaglin (1933), 262 Mich 162; People v. Owen (1927), 241 Mich 111.

Defendant’s second complaint about the instructions is wholly without merit. There can be no error in the trial judge’s restating the contentions of the parties.

*273 Second, defendant asserts insufficiency of the evidence. Though the evidence was partly circumstantial, it is clear from the record that the evidence established defendant’s guilt. The evidence shows that the robbery was committed, that co-defendants Brown and Small committed it, and that defendant participated therein at least to the extent of providing transportation to and from the scene of the crime.

Third, defendant asserts a denial of fair trial and due process based on his first two assertions of error. The first two claims of error fail, therefore, this issue must fail.

Defendant has shown no error. Conviction affirmed.

1

MCLA § 750.530 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.798).

2

No objection was voiced regarding the jury instructions, thus this issue is evaluated by the manifest injustice standard.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant Norman Laine, charged with unarmed robbery, 1 was convicted upon a jury verdict and sentenced to 7 to 15 years in prison. Taking an appeal as of right, defendant raises three issues.

First, defendant contends it was error 2 for the trial judge to instruct the jury that they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed, that it was committed by the codefendants, and that defendant Norman Laine either aided, assisted, procured, or counseled the codefendants in its commission. It is true, by virtue of MCLA § 767.39 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.979), that the distinction between principal and accessory has been removed. However, though conviction of the principal is no longer necessary to charge the accessory, the guilt of the principal must still be shown. See, People v. Tunnacliff (1965), 375 Mich 298, 301; People v. DeBolt (1934), 269 Mich 39; People v. Hoaglin (1933), 262 Mich 162; People v. Owen (1927), 241 Mich 111.

Defendant’s second complaint about the instructions is wholly without merit. There can be no error in the trial judge’s restating the contentions of the parties.

*273 Second, defendant asserts insufficiency of the evidence. Though the evidence was partly circumstantial, it is clear from the record that the evidence established defendant’s guilt. The evidence shows that the robbery was committed, that co-defendants Brown and Small committed it, and that defendant participated therein at least to the extent of providing transportation to and from the scene of the crime.

Third, defendant asserts a denial of fair trial and due process based on his first two assertions of error. The first two claims of error fail, therefore, this issue must fail.

Defendant has shown no error. Conviction affirmed.

1

MCLA § 750.530 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.798).

2

No objection was voiced regarding the jury instructions, thus this issue is evaluated by the manifest injustice standard.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 N.W.2d 505, 31 Mich. App. 271, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-laine-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack