People v. Merritt

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Merritt

186 N.W.2d 2, 30 Mich. App. 237, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2206

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 28, 1971

DocketDocket No. 9629

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 N.W.2d 2 (People v. Merritt) 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. Merritt, 186 N.W.2d 2, 30 Mich. App. 237, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2206 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a jury conviction on a charge of armed robbery.¹ The people move to affirm.

Defendant’s only claim is that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty by the jury. A review of the transcript indicates that there was ample testimony upon which to base such a verdict. The defendant was identified as one of the robbers by an eyewitness who looked directly at the defendant for several minutes while he was pointing a shotgun at her. Another witness who cooperated with the defendant in the robbery identified him as having participated in the crime. There was no contradictory testimony.

The evidence was adequate to support the verdict of guilty. This Court will not disturb a guilty verdict by a jury when there is evidence in the record which, if believed, will support the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Person (1969), 20 Mich App 246; People v. Hummel (1969), 19 Mich App 266; People v. Floyd (1968), 15 Mich App 284; People v. Shaw (1968), 10 Mich App 315.

Motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a jury conviction on a charge of armed robbery.¹ The people move to affirm.

Defendant’s only claim is that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty by the jury. A review of the transcript indicates that there was ample testimony upon which to base such a verdict. The defendant was identified as one of the robbers by an eyewitness who looked directly at the defendant for several minutes while he was pointing a shotgun at her. Another witness who cooperated with the defendant in the robbery identified him as having participated in the crime. There was no contradictory testimony.

The evidence was adequate to support the verdict of guilty. This Court will not disturb a guilty verdict by a jury when there is evidence in the record which, if believed, will support the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Person (1969), 20 Mich App 246; People v. Hummel (1969), 19 Mich App 266; People v. Floyd (1968), 15 Mich App 284; People v. Shaw (1968), 10 Mich App 315.

Motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 N.W.2d 2, 30 Mich. App. 237, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 2206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-merritt-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack