People v. Louis

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Louis

179 N.W.2d 227, 23 Mich. App. 640, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1902

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 1, 1970

DocketDocket No. 8,219

StatusPublished

This text of 179 N.W.2d 227 (People v. Louis) 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. Louis, 179 N.W.2d 227, 23 Mich. App. 640, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1902 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, tried before a judge sitting without a jury, was found guilty of manslaughter, CL 1948, § 750.321 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.553), for the fatal shooting of her husband.

The only issue raised upon appeal is whether there was a miscarriage of justice because a witness, a male nurse, was not subpoenaed by the prosecution to appear at trial. The witness (Brownell) was alleged to have heard the deceased state, before he expired, that the shooting was an accident.

The witness’s name (Brownell) had been indorsed upon the original information, however an amended information did not carry the witness’s name so indorsed. Brownell was not called or offered by the people at trial.

The prosecutor advised the trial court that a res gestae witness had not been called; however, defendant’s attorney immediately waived the witness’s (Brownell) presence for the reason that the deceased’s statement was heard by the court through another witness who had testified for the state.

We have stated over and over again that the objections not raised below will not be reviewed by this Court unless upon the whole record it appears that a miscarriage of justice would result. People [642]*642v. Willis (1965), 1 Mich App 428; People v. Rimson (1966), 3 Mich App 713; People v. Jackson (1969), 17 Mich App 675.

In the instant case we do not feel that a miscarriage of justice has occurred for the reason that the judge below as the finder of fact heard and considered what the missing witness would have said on the stand by way of another witness. In addition, he apparently based his decision that the shooting was not an accident upon other evidence (the gun had discharged twice) which despite a statement from the victim that the incident was accidental, was sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because no proper objection was raised below, and looking at the evidence on the whole record, we cannot say that there was a miscarriage of justice.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, tried before a judge sitting without a jury, was found guilty of manslaughter, CL 1948, § 750.321 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.553), for the fatal shooting of her husband.

The only issue raised upon appeal is whether there was a miscarriage of justice because a witness, a male nurse, was not subpoenaed by the prosecution to appear at trial. The witness (Brownell) was alleged to have heard the deceased state, before he expired, that the shooting was an accident.

The witness’s name (Brownell) had been indorsed upon the original information, however an amended information did not carry the witness’s name so indorsed. Brownell was not called or offered by the people at trial.

The prosecutor advised the trial court that a res gestae witness had not been called; however, defendant’s attorney immediately waived the witness’s (Brownell) presence for the reason that the deceased’s statement was heard by the court through another witness who had testified for the state.

We have stated over and over again that the objections not raised below will not be reviewed by this Court unless upon the whole record it appears that a miscarriage of justice would result. People [642]*642v. Willis (1965), 1 Mich App 428; People v. Rimson (1966), 3 Mich App 713; People v. Jackson (1969), 17 Mich App 675.

In the instant case we do not feel that a miscarriage of justice has occurred for the reason that the judge below as the finder of fact heard and considered what the missing witness would have said on the stand by way of another witness. In addition, he apparently based his decision that the shooting was not an accident upon other evidence (the gun had discharged twice) which despite a statement from the victim that the incident was accidental, was sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because no proper objection was raised below, and looking at the evidence on the whole record, we cannot say that there was a miscarriage of justice.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 N.W.2d 227, 23 Mich. App. 640, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-louis-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack