Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Costea

19 Mich. App. 166 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Costea

7 Citing cases

  1. People v. Wimbley

    108 Mich. App. 527 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 7 times
    In People v Wimbley, 108 Mich. App. 527, 532; 310 N.W.2d 449 (1981), this Court held that the notice requirements of the IAD must be complied with strictly.

    As a general rule, to challenge the voir dire of the jury on appeal, objection should be taken immediately when the jurors are excused. People v Costea, 19 Mich. App. 166; 172 N.W.2d 488 (1969). Where there are no previous objections to the dismissal of jurors, this Court will reach the issue only if the defendant demonstrates prejudice by the jury ultimately selected.

  2. People v. Carrier

    74 Mich. App. 161 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 6 times
    Defining "bestiality" as a "sexual connection between a human being and an animal"

    There was no objection at trial, and the error is untimely raised for the first time on appeal. People v Costea, 19 Mich. App. 166, 168; 172 N.W.2d 488 (1969), lv den, 383 Mich. 794 (1970). The conviction for aiding and abetting a crime against nature is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

  3. People v. Smith

    6 Ill. App. 3d 259 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972)   Cited 52 times
    Finding great bodily harm where the victim had no permanent injuries but the defendant "struck the complainant twice in the face with his fist, gave her a lump in her mouth, put a scar on her face, and left bruises under her chin"

    This was admissible evidence. People v. Newsome, 291 Ill. 11, 125 N.E. 735; compare Cunningham v. State, Ind. (1971), 267 N.E.2d 181; see People v. Costea, 19 Mich. App. 166, 172 N.W.2d 488. • 3-5 The fact that the answer also suggested defendant's conviction of another crime did not make it inadmissible.

  4. People v. Garcia

    39 Mich. App. 45 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 6 times

    This question of due diligence is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, subject to being overturned on appeal only for clear abuse. People v. Costea, 19 Mich. App. 166 (1969); People v. Tubbs, 22 Mich. App. 549 (1970); People v. Alexander, 26 Mich. App. 321 (1970); People v. Roland Robinson, 30 Mich. App. 372 (1971). Witness Larry Hall could not be found.

  5. People v. Phillips

    37 Mich. App. 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 10 times
    In Phillips, two apparently unbiased witnesses helped the police arrest defendant shortly after the crime was committed.

    The finding of due diligence required is within the discretion of the trial court, and is subject to reversal on appeal only for clear abuse. People v. Costea (1969), 19 Mich. App. 166; People v. Tubbs (1970), 22 Mich. App. 549; People v. Alexander (1970), 22 Mich. App. 321. Police were unable to subpoena Price at his last address because he was in the Air Force. Contacts were made with the witness's wife and parents without success.

  6. People v. Claugherty

    36 Mich. App. 648 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 7 times

    It is within the court's discretion to excuse the prosecution from producing an indorsed witness upon a showing of diligence. People v. Costea (1969), 19 Mich. App. 166; People v. Tubbs (1970), 22 Mich. App. 549; People v. Alexander (1970), 26 Mich. App. 321. In this case there is proof of diligence.

  7. People v. Gomolak

    28 Mich. App. 636 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 2 times

    The question of whether the prosecution has put forth a proper effort to produce an indorsed witness is for the trial court's discretion. People v. Costea (1969), 19 Mich. App. 166; People v. Dusterwinkle (1966), 3 Mich. App. 150, 153. The record in this case reveals no abuse of discretion that would justify reversal.