People v. Page

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Page

183 N.W.2d 838, 27 Mich. App. 682, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1401

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 30, 1970

DocketDocket 9,115

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 183 N.W.2d 838 (People v. Page) 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. Page, 183 N.W.2d 838, 27 Mich. App. 682, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1401 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Hara, J.

Defendant appeals from his conviction after jury trial upon a charge of robbery unarmed. MCLA § 750.530 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.798). The victims testified at trial that they were lured to the scene of the crime with a promise of sexual relations. To say the least, their confidence in the promisors was ill-founded. Once there, they were set upon by six men and one woman and relieved of what money they possessed without the quid pro quo. Defendant was identified as one of the six men involved.

On appeal, defendant questions only the propriety of the prosecutor’s opening and closing statements to the jury, isolating eight different portions which allegedly operated to deprive him of his right to a fair trial. Plaintiff argues that defendant failed to object during trial to any of the statements, and consequently the issue is not preserved for review. This general principle of appellate practice is inapplicable, however, if the prosecutor’s statements result in a miscarriage of justice. People v. Ignofo *684 (1946), 315 Mich 626, 634; People v. David Smith (1968), 16 Mich App 198, 201.

We have examined the record with care. No particular value to the trial bench or the bar would result from setting out the challenged excerpts verbatim. They fell within the permissible limits of vigorous prosecution. There is no suggestion of a miscarriage of justice in the verdict. The trial judge carefully instructed the jury concerning the differences between evidence and argument.

“You may consider the statements and arguments of the lawyers, but not as being either the evidence or law for this case.”

We find no error. Affirmed.

All concurred.

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

O’Hara, J.

Defendant appeals from his conviction after jury trial upon a charge of robbery unarmed. MCLA § 750.530 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.798). The victims testified at trial that they were lured to the scene of the crime with a promise of sexual relations. To say the least, their confidence in the promisors was ill-founded. Once there, they were set upon by six men and one woman and relieved of what money they possessed without the quid pro quo. Defendant was identified as one of the six men involved.

On appeal, defendant questions only the propriety of the prosecutor’s opening and closing statements to the jury, isolating eight different portions which allegedly operated to deprive him of his right to a fair trial. Plaintiff argues that defendant failed to object during trial to any of the statements, and consequently the issue is not preserved for review. This general principle of appellate practice is inapplicable, however, if the prosecutor’s statements result in a miscarriage of justice. People v. Ignofo *684 (1946), 315 Mich 626, 634; People v. David Smith (1968), 16 Mich App 198, 201.

We have examined the record with care. No particular value to the trial bench or the bar would result from setting out the challenged excerpts verbatim. They fell within the permissible limits of vigorous prosecution. There is no suggestion of a miscarriage of justice in the verdict. The trial judge carefully instructed the jury concerning the differences between evidence and argument.

“You may consider the statements and arguments of the lawyers, but not as being either the evidence or law for this case.”

We find no error. Affirmed.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 N.W.2d 838, 27 Mich. App. 682, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-page-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack