People v. McComb

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. McComb

168 N.W.2d 638, 16 Mich. App. 757, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1489

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 1969

DocketDocket No. 5,377

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 N.W.2d 638 (People v. McComb) 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. McComb, 168 N.W.2d 638, 16 Mich. App. 757, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1489 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted, after trial by jury, of forcible rape (CLS 1961, § 750.520 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.788]), and was sentenced on February 9, 1968, to 25 to 40 years in prison. On appeal defendant argues (1) that the court in which he was convicted was not the place of proper venue and, therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction, and (2) that the record failed to show that the complaining witness exercised the required degree of resistance against the alleged attacker. A motion to affirm t.he conviction has-been filed by the people. ■ •

A review of the briefs, the record and transcript and the motion to affirm reveals that the venue question was not,raised at trial.. Accordingly, it may not be raised for the first time on appeal. People v. Williams (1965), 1 Mich App 441; CL 1948, § 767.45 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev §.28.985). Competent evidence was introduced at the trial that the will of the complaining witness was overcome by fear of the defendant. See People v. Myers (1943), 306 Mich 100.

The motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted, after trial by jury, of forcible rape (CLS 1961, § 750.520 [Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.788]), and was sentenced on February 9, 1968, to 25 to 40 years in prison. On appeal defendant argues (1) that the court in which he was convicted was not the place of proper venue and, therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction, and (2) that the record failed to show that the complaining witness exercised the required degree of resistance against the alleged attacker. A motion to affirm t.he conviction has-been filed by the people. ■ •

A review of the briefs, the record and transcript and the motion to affirm reveals that the venue question was not,raised at trial.. Accordingly, it may not be raised for the first time on appeal. People v. Williams (1965), 1 Mich App 441; CL 1948, § 767.45 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev §.28.985). Competent evidence was introduced at the trial that the will of the complaining witness was overcome by fear of the defendant. See People v. Myers (1943), 306 Mich 100.

The motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.W.2d 638, 16 Mich. App. 757, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccomb-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack