People v. Luckett

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Luckett

216 N.W.2d 460, 52 Mich. App. 33, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 982

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 1974

DocketDocket 16576

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 216 N.W.2d 460 (People v. Luckett) 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. Luckett, 216 N.W.2d 460, 52 Mich. App. 33, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 982 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

R. B. Burns, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit armed robbery, *34 MCLA 750.88; MSA 28.283. The sole issue on appeal concerns the admissibility of his alibi defense.

Defendant allegedly stole a watch at about 5 a.m. on March 31, 1972. Without having first filed a notice of alibi, the defense offered a witness who testified that he and the defendant were someplace else when the robbery allegedly occurred. The prosecutor made no objections to the introduction of this evidence. Instead, the trial proceeded to its conclusion and final arguments were heard without the admissibility question ever being raised by either side. However, the trial court, on its own motion, instructed the jury to disregard defendant’s alibi evidence. This instruction was timely objected to by defendant.

It was error for the trial court to give such an instruction on its own initiative. The prosecution waives its objection to defendant’s failure to provide alibi notice when it accepts the introduction of such evidence without protest. People v Miller, 250 Mich 72, 74-75; 229 NW 475, 476 (1930).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

All concurred.

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

R. B. Burns, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit armed robbery, *34 MCLA 750.88; MSA 28.283. The sole issue on appeal concerns the admissibility of his alibi defense.

Defendant allegedly stole a watch at about 5 a.m. on March 31, 1972. Without having first filed a notice of alibi, the defense offered a witness who testified that he and the defendant were someplace else when the robbery allegedly occurred. The prosecutor made no objections to the introduction of this evidence. Instead, the trial proceeded to its conclusion and final arguments were heard without the admissibility question ever being raised by either side. However, the trial court, on its own motion, instructed the jury to disregard defendant’s alibi evidence. This instruction was timely objected to by defendant.

It was error for the trial court to give such an instruction on its own initiative. The prosecution waives its objection to defendant’s failure to provide alibi notice when it accepts the introduction of such evidence without protest. People v Miller, 250 Mich 72, 74-75; 229 NW 475, 476 (1930).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 N.W.2d 460, 52 Mich. App. 33, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-luckett-michctapp-1974.

Opinion

R. B. Burns, P. J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack