People v. Reed

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Reed

35 Mich. App. 417

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 31, 1971

DocketDocket No. 9238

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Mich. App. 417 (People v. Reed) 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. Reed, 35 Mich. App. 417 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted by a Recorder’s Court jury of robbery armed, contrary to MCLA §750.529 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 28.797), and sentenced to a term of 20 to 40 years imprisonment. Defendant appeals as of right. The people move to affirm the conviction and sentence. GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

Defendant raises two issues on appeal. It is manifest that the questions presented, on which decision of the cause depends, are so unsubstantial as to need no formal argument or submission.

Defendant first argues that certain identification testimony of an eyewitness to the robbery was improperly admitted. Even if the testimony was not proper, it was harmless error because there was sufficient evidence, direct and circumstantial, that the jury could believe that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Kern (1967), 6 Mich App 406.

Second, defendant argues that certain remarks of the prosecutor in closing argument were prejudicial and thereby reversible error. The remarks of the prosecutor were proper comments on the evidence and the theory of the prosecution. People v. Humphreys (1970), 24 Mich App 411.

The motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted by a Recorder’s Court jury of robbery armed, contrary to MCLA §750.529 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 28.797), and sentenced to a term of 20 to 40 years imprisonment. Defendant appeals as of right. The people move to affirm the conviction and sentence. GCR 1963, 817.5(3).

Defendant raises two issues on appeal. It is manifest that the questions presented, on which decision of the cause depends, are so unsubstantial as to need no formal argument or submission.

Defendant first argues that certain identification testimony of an eyewitness to the robbery was improperly admitted. Even if the testimony was not proper, it was harmless error because there was sufficient evidence, direct and circumstantial, that the jury could believe that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Kern (1967), 6 Mich App 406.

Second, defendant argues that certain remarks of the prosecutor in closing argument were prejudicial and thereby reversible error. The remarks of the prosecutor were proper comments on the evidence and the theory of the prosecution. People v. Humphreys (1970), 24 Mich App 411.

The motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Mich. App. 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reed-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack