People v. Price

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Price

170 N.W.2d 275, 17 Mich. App. 605, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1258

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 23, 1969

DocketDocket No. 3,849

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 170 N.W.2d 275 (People v. Price) 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. Price, 170 N.W.2d 275, 17 Mich. App. 605, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1258 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of armed robbery. CL 1948 § 750.529 as amended by PA 1959, No 71 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.797). He was sentenced to 6 to 15 years’ imprisonment and appeals. The only issue on appeal is whether the jury’s verdict is supported by sufficient evidence identifying the defendant as the holdup man.

The complaining witness positively identified the defendant as the robber in a 10 or 12 man lineup conducted a few weeks after the holdup and also at the time of trial. One witness failed to identify the defendant during a 5 man lineup conducted approximately 2 weeks after the holdup but at the trial identified the defendant as the robber. Another witness testified that the defendant looked like the robber. Two other witnesses were unable to identify the defendant. Defendant took the stand and denied he participated in the robbery.

We are convinced that the people’s evidence was sufficient to raise issues of credibility and fact for jury resolution. There was sufficient evidence upon which to predicate a verdict of guilty See People v. Arither Thomas (1967), 7 Mich App 103.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of armed robbery. CL 1948 § 750.529 as amended by PA 1959, No 71 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.797). He was sentenced to 6 to 15 years’ imprisonment and appeals. The only issue on appeal is whether the jury’s verdict is supported by sufficient evidence identifying the defendant as the holdup man.

The complaining witness positively identified the defendant as the robber in a 10 or 12 man lineup conducted a few weeks after the holdup and also at the time of trial. One witness failed to identify the defendant during a 5 man lineup conducted approximately 2 weeks after the holdup but at the trial identified the defendant as the robber. Another witness testified that the defendant looked like the robber. Two other witnesses were unable to identify the defendant. Defendant took the stand and denied he participated in the robbery.

We are convinced that the people’s evidence was sufficient to raise issues of credibility and fact for jury resolution. There was sufficient evidence upon which to predicate a verdict of guilty See People v. Arither Thomas (1967), 7 Mich App 103.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 N.W.2d 275, 17 Mich. App. 605, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-price-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack