People v. Pingel

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Pingel

190 N.W.2d 685, 34 Mich. App. 145, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1586

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 27, 1971

DocketDocket No. 10618

StatusPublished

This text of 190 N.W.2d 685 (People v. Pingel) 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. Pingel, 190 N.W.2d 685, 34 Mich. App. 145, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1586 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was found guilty of felonious assault¹ and obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duty.² On appeal, defendant asserts that he was prejudiced by a remark made by the prosecutor in his closing argument and that the trial court improperly charged the jury.

A review of the record clearly indicates that the assignments of error are without merit. The remark by the prosecutor was not made with any apparent intent to prejudice, was minimally prejudicial, if prejudicial at all, and was cured by the trial court’s instruction to the jury that they disregard the prosecutor’s inadvertent statement. With regard to the alleged improper instruction, it will suffice to say that no objection was made at trial to the instruction as given, and the trial court judicially honored, word for word, the pertinent instruction found in 4 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law & Procedure (2d ed), Form 937, p 2366.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was found guilty of felonious assault¹ and obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duty.² On appeal, defendant asserts that he was prejudiced by a remark made by the prosecutor in his closing argument and that the trial court improperly charged the jury.

A review of the record clearly indicates that the assignments of error are without merit. The remark by the prosecutor was not made with any apparent intent to prejudice, was minimally prejudicial, if prejudicial at all, and was cured by the trial court’s instruction to the jury that they disregard the prosecutor’s inadvertent statement. With regard to the alleged improper instruction, it will suffice to say that no objection was made at trial to the instruction as given, and the trial court judicially honored, word for word, the pertinent instruction found in 4 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law & Procedure (2d ed), Form 937, p 2366.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 N.W.2d 685, 34 Mich. App. 145, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pingel-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack