People v. Haggai

7 Citing cases

  1. People v. Coleman

    51 Mich. App. 539 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    However, jury instructions must be read in their entirety. People v Haggai, 332 Mich. 467; 52 N.W.2d 186 (1952). When read as a whole, the instructions given in the instant case accurately stated the applicable law.

  2. People v. Thomas

    49 Mich. App. 682 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 7 times
    In People v Thomas, 49 Mich. App. 682; 212 N.W.2d 728 (1973), this Court rejected a defense claim that the trial judge had erred in granting a prosecution motion to indorse an alleged accomplice after the jury had been impanelled.

    "When reviewing an instruction to determine whether or not it stated the applicable law or prejudiced the defendant, we will examine the instruction as a whole rather than in small excerpts. People v Pearson, 13 Mich. App. 371 [ 164 N.W.2d 568] (1968), and People v Haggai, 332 Mich. 467 [ 52 N.W.2d 186] (1952)."

  3. People v. Harper

    43 Mich. App. 500 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 51 times
    In Harper, the dog handler's testimony established that both dog and handler had undergone extensive training and were accurate in tracking people, the handler put the dog on the defendant's trail "where the perpetrator of the rape left the victim's home," and the trail was fresh enough that the dog was competent to follow it.

    "When reviewing an instruction to determine whether or not it stated the applicable law or prejudiced the defendant, we will examine the instruction as a whole rather than in small excerpts. People v. Pearson, 13 Mich. App. 371 (1968), and People v. Haggai, 332 Mich. 467 (1952). Moreover, it is well settled that, absent a showing of manifest injustice, criminal defendants seeking a review of allegedly erroneous instructions to the jury must make a timely objection to those instructions in accordance with GCR 1963, 516.2 which provides:

  4. People v. Spaulding

    42 Mich. App. 492 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 39 times

    When reviewing an instruction to determine whether or not it stated the applicable law or prejudiced the defendant, we will examine the instruction as a whole rather than in small excerpts. People v. Pearson, 13 Mich. App. 371 (1968), and People v. Haggai, 332 Mich. 467 (1952). Moreover, it is well settled that, absent a showing of manifest injustice, criminal defendants seeking a review of allegedly erroneous instructions to the jury must make a timely objection to those instructions in accordance with GCR 1963, 516.2 which provides:

  5. People v. Jessie Jackson

    30 Mich. App. 438 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 5 times

    However, jury instructions must be read as a whole. People v. Dye (1959), 356 Mich. 271 ( cert den 361 U.S. 935 [ 80 S Ct 367, 4 L Ed 2d 355]); People v. Haggai (1952), 332 Mich. 467; People v. Carr (1966), 2 Mich. App. 222. When the entire charge is considered it is clear that the trial court emphasized the fact that being armed is an element of the offense.

  6. People v. Stewart

    25 Mich. App. 204 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 4 times

    The applicable statute, MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.305), includes the words "any felony", which conceivably led the judge to make such a reference. The Supreme Court of this state has reiterated on numerous occasions that when an attack is made on a court's jury charge, the whole charge must be considered and construed in context, and that its correctness cannot be tested by examining particular parts. E.g., People v. Haggai (1952), 332 Mich. 467; People v. Loudenslager (1950), 327 Mich. 718. See, also, People v. Goldsby (1969), 17 Mich. App. 16; People v. Gardner (1968), 13 Mich. App. 16.

  7. People v. Pearson

    13 Mich. App. 371 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 11 times

    See People v. Liggett (1967), 378 Mich. 706. We must therefore consider the charge in its entirety to determine whether it was substantially correct and not prejudicial to the rights of defendant; People v. Haggai (1952), 332 Mich. 467, and People v. Sura (1942), 301 Mich. 124. Defendant bases his claim of error on the well-settled law of this State that in criminal cases where the issue of self-defense has been raised, the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, still rests with the people, and that the burden is not on defendant to satisfy the jury that he acted in self-defense, but rather the people have the burden of showing facts that would convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense.