People v. Giddens
Opinion
Per Curiam.
This: case is submitted, on the people’s motion to affirm. Edgar Giddens, Jr., was convicted by a jury of the crime of robbery unarmed in violation of MCLA § 750.530 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.798), and on February 28, 1968, he was sentenced to 3-1/2 to 15 years in prison.
The case presents two questions: first, did the lower court err in failing to instruct the jury, in response to defense counsel’s request, regarding the offense of attempted robbery? Second, were certain comments by the prosecuting attorney, during closing argument, so prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair and impartial trial?
A review of defendant’s brief, the motion to affirm, and the transcript of the trial discloses that the court properly denied defendant’s requested instruction. The court instructed the jury regarding the offenses of unarmed robbery, assault with the intent to rob and steal being unarmed, larceny from a person, and assault and battery. The failure to instruct the jury regarding attempted robbery was proper as there was no evidence to support such an instruction.
People v. Stevens (1968), 9 Mich App 531 .
Defendant’s second allegation of error, pertaining to the prosecuting attorney’s statements during closing argument, was not preserved for appeal since no objection was made.
People y.
Hider *590 (1968), 12 Mich App 526 ;
People v. Zesk (1944), 309 Mich 129 ; and People v. Goldberg (1929), 248 Mich 553 . Moreover, the record discloses no miscarriage of justice. The statements made were not as highly inflammatory as those found in People v. Ignofo (1946), 315 Mich 626 , People v. Holmes (1940), 292 Mich 212 , or People v. Kelsey (1942) 303 Mich 715 , which resulted in prejudicial error requiring reversal even in the absence of objection in the lower court.
Motion to affirm is granted.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.