People v. Hancock

24 Citing cases

  1. People v. Duncan

    402 Mich. 1 (Mich. 1977)   Cited 137 times
    In Duncan, however, the defendants were charged with conspiracy to do a legal act in an illegal manner, MCL 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1), and solicitation of a bribe, MCL 750.505; MSA 28.773.

    Because no objection was made to any of the prosecutor's closing arguments at trial, appellate review is foreclosed unless our failure to consider the issue would result in a miscarriage of justice. People v Alcala, 396 Mich. 99; 237 N.W.2d 475 (1976); People v Hancock, 326 Mich. 471; 40 N.W.2d 689 (1950); People v Zesk, 309 Mich. 129; 14 N.W.2d 808 (1944); People v Connors, 251 Mich. 99; 230 N.W. 931 (1930); People v Goldberg, 248 Mich. 553; 227 N.W. 708 (1929); MCLA 769.26; MSA 28.1096. We examine the prosecutor's remarks in the context in which they were made.

  2. People v. Hancock

    43 N.W.2d 312 (Mich. 1950)   Cited 2 times

    ON REHEARING. This case on rehearing is controlled by People v. Hancock, 326 Mich. 471. REID and BUSHNELL, JJ., dissenting.

  3. People v. Shea

    43 N.W.2d 313 (Mich. 1950)   Cited 1 times

    ON REHEARING. This case is controlled by People v. Hancock, 326 Mich. 471; People v. Omacht, 326 Mich. 505, 328 Mich. 145; People v. Cooper, 326 Mich. 514, 328 Mich. 159; People v. Shea, 326 Mich. 526. REID and BUSHNELL, JJ., dissenting.

  4. In re Cantu

    No. 353284 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2020)

    Because the great-grandmother's response was the product of a sustained objection, we decline to consider it. See People v Hancock, 326 Mich 471, 499-500; 40 NW2d 689 (1950) (approving of an instruction that excluded or stricken evidence should not be considered). Regardless, the child was not placed with the great-grandmother at the time of the hearing. --------

  5. People v. Bowyer

    108 Mich. App. 517 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 10 times

    It is for the jury to decide who to believe and what testimony of a particular witness to believe. People v Hancock, 326 Mich. 471, 504; 40 N.W.2d 689 (1950), People v Franszkiewicz, 302 Mich. 144, 153-154; 4 N.W.2d 500 (1942), People v English, 302 Mich. 463, 469; 4 N.W.2d 727 (1942), People v Miceli, 35 Mich. App. 176, 178; 192 N.W.2d 335 (1971), People v Strunk, 11 Mich. App. 99, 101-103; 160 N.W.2d 602 (1968). In People v Stewart, 36 Mich. App. 93, 98; 193 N.W.2d 184 (1971), this Court stated that great deference should be given to the trier of fact because of the problems inherent in reviewing a cold transcript.

  6. People v. Dungey

    356 Mich. 686 (Mich. 1959)   Cited 3 times

    Secrecy is requisite for the protection of the innocent as well as for the effective conducting of the investigation. In the main the arguments advanced by counsel for appellants present nothing of a material nature that has not been carefully considered in prior decisions relating to the one-man grand-jury act, the constitutionality of which this Court has recognized in several cases, including People v. Hancock, 326 Mich. 471, 491. In People v. Pickett, 339 Mich. 294 (45 ALR2d 1341), the conviction of the defendants on a charge of conspiracy to violate the gambling laws of the State was affirmed, the Court holding that objections that defendants had been deprived of constitutional rights were not well-founded. Writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States. Pickett v. Michigan, 349 U.S. 937 ( 75 S Ct 781, 99 L ed 1266).

  7. People v. Birch

    329 Mich. 38 (Mich. 1950)   Cited 7 times

    See In re Slattery, 310 Mich. 458 (certiorari denied, 325 U.S. 876 [ 65 Sup Ct 1553, 89 L ed 1993]). See, also, People v. Hancock, 326 Mich. 471. The order from which the appeal has been taken is reversed, and the causes are remanded for further proceedings therein.

  8. People v. Omacht

    43 N.W.2d 305 (Mich. 1950)   Cited 3 times

    My Brother dwells much upon and again urges that the receipt in evidence of Senate Bill No 41 constituted reversible error. Further comment on this issue is not at all necessary because it was covered, and I think satisfactorily, in the prevailing opinion in People v. Hancock, 326 Mich. 471, and especially in the opinion of Chief Justice BOYLES on the rehearing in People v. Cooper, post, 159. The issue of whether the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence is considered again at considerable length in Justice BUSHNELL'S opinion.

  9. People v. Wright

    41 Mich. App. 518 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 7 times

    In such a situation the law is clear; the comments or remarks of the prosecutor in oral argument will not be considered on appeal in the absence of timely objection thereto at the trial by defendant. People v. Haley, 48 Mich. 495 (1882); People v. Giddings, 159 Mich. 523 (1910); People v. Savage, 225 Mich. 84 (1923); People v. Zesk, 309 Mich. 129 (1944); People v. Hancock, 326 Mich. 471 (1950); and People v. Edwards, 35 Mich. App. 233 (1971). We have carefully examined the now objected to remarks of the prosecutor and find that they were not so prejudicial or improper as to call for reversal, especially in view of the fact that no objections were made at the trial.

  10. People v. Szczytko

    40 Mich. App. 161 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 10 times

    In such a situation the law is clear; the comments or remarks of the prosecutor in oral arguments will not be considered on appeal in the absence of a timely objection thereto at the trial by the defendant. People v. Haley, 48 Mich. 495 (1882); People v. Giddings, 159 Mich. 523 (1910); People v. Savage, 225 Mich. 84 (1923); People v. Zesk, 309 Mich. 129 (1944); People v. Hancock, 326 Mich. 471 (1950); and People v. Edwards, 35 Mich. App. 233 (1971). We have carefully examined the now objected to remarks of the prosecutor and find that they were not so prejudicial or improper as to call for reversal, especially in view of the fact that no objections were made at the trial.