From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Giddens

Michigan Court of Appeals
Aug 25, 1969
18 Mich. App. 588 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)

Opinion

Docket No. 5,742.

Decided August 25, 1969. Rehearing denied October 14, 1969. Leave to appeal denied January 21, 1970. See 383 Mich. 760.

Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit, Elvin L. Davenport, J. Submitted Division 1 August 12, 1969, at Grand Rapids. (Docket No. 5,742.) Decided August 25, 1969. Rehearing denied October 14, 1969. Leave to appeal denied January 21, 1970. See 383 Mich. 760.

Edgar Giddens, Jr., was convicted of unarmed robbery. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Arthur N. Bishop, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Carl Levin (Defender's Office, Legal Aid and Defender Association of Detroit), for defendant on appeal.

Before: HOLBROOK, P.J., and FITZGERALD and T.M. BURNS, JJ.


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 v. Hider (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.


Summaries of

People v. Giddens

Michigan Court of Appeals
Aug 25, 1969
18 Mich. App. 588 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)
Case details for

People v. Giddens

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. GIDDENS

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 25, 1969

Citations

18 Mich. App. 588 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)
171 N.W.2d 596

Citing Cases

People v. Harrison

Case law in this state has consistently recognized that there is no duty to give a requested instruction on…

People v. Clemons

Prior to Jones and Chamblis it had been well established that failure to give a requested lesser included…