People v. Page
This text of 329 N.W.2d 541 (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.
Opinion
The defendant was convicted by a jury of assault with intent to rob while armed. MCL 750.89; MSA 28.284. Sentenced to serve a term of 8 to 20 years imprisonment, defendant appeals his conviction as a matter of right.
Defendant argues that certain remarks by the prosecutor in his closing argument were improper and require reversal. The complained of remarks are as follows: "Has the prosecutor been trying to hide anything? Well we introduced his statement. It wasn’t Mr. Pitts that introduced it, it was the people.” The "statement” mentioned by the prosecutor was given by the defendant to the police after his arrest and introduced at trial by the people. In it, the defendant confessed to the crime and described some sympathetic aspects of his background.1 We note at the outset that the defendant failed to object to these remarks at trial. [82]*82Appellate review is thus foreclosed unless our failure to decide the issue would result in a miscarriage of justice. People v Duncan, 402 Mich 1, 15-16; 260 NW2d 58 (1977).
The prosecutor’s remarks must be viewed in the context in which they were made. People v Allen, 351 Mich 535; 88 NW2d 433 (1958). It is clear that the prosecutor did not intend to stress to the jury that the defendant failed to introduce his confession. Instead, he emphasized those portions of defendant’s statement which could evoke the jury’s sympathy.2 His primary point was that the people, having introduced evidence favorable to the defendant, did not "hide anything” from the jury. Nevertheless, by stressing that "[i]t wasn’t Mr. Pitts [defense counsel] who introduced it, it was the people” the prosecutor may have conveyed to the jury that the defendant was "hiding” this evidence. It is well-settled that a defendant is under no duty to "take the stand or proffer evidence, but rather may remain silent protected by the presumption of innocence”. People v Shannon, 88 [83]*83Mich App 138, 143; 276 NW2d 546 (1979). Any prejudice, however, could have been remedied by a curative instruction. Because defendant neither objected nor reguested a curative instruction, we cannot reverse. People v Duncan, supra, People v Hall, 396 Mich 650; 242 NW2d 377 (1976). Defendant’s conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
329 N.W.2d 541, 122 Mich. App. 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-page-michctapp-1982.