People v. Prescott

10 Citing cases

  1. People v. Vaughn

    75 Mich. App. 540 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 2 times

    " A recognized excuse for delay in reporting a sexual assault is the youth of the victim, e.g. People v Prescott, 268 Mich. 606; 256 N.W. 564 (1934). Another exception might be the threat of further harm to the victim should she complain.

  2. People v. Flynn

    47 N.W.2d 47 (Mich. 1951)   Cited 5 times

    I agree with Mr. Justice BUSHNELL that the nonindorsement upon the information of the names of certain persons, referred to by defendant on appeal as res gestae witnesses, did not, under the circumstances of this case, amount to reversible error, particularly because such indorsement was at no time before verdict requested by the defense and there is no showing that the defense was less aware at time of trial than now of the existence and identity of those persons, they having assisted defendant in tipping over the automobile. See People v. Fleisch, 321 Mich. 443, and People v. Prescott, 268 Mich. 606. See CL 1948, § 767.40 (Stat Ann § 28.980).

  3. People v. Dimitroff

    32 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. 1948)   Cited 15 times
    In People v. Dimitroff (1948), 321 Mich. 205, 209, the defendant was convicted of taking indecent liberties with an 8-year-old child in a movie theatre.

    Hughes v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 239 Mich. 110; Morris v. Radley, 306 Mich. 689, 698. Also, see annotation in 139 A.L.R. 340. The failure to indorse the names of res gestae witnesses on the information cannot be raised for the first time on a motion for a new trial. People v. Prescott, 268 Mich. 606. Defendant had previously made a timely motion for a new trial based largely on affidavits of four additional persons stating facts to prove the truth of the alibi.

  4. People v. Green

    34 Mich. App. 149 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 29 times

    It is the rule in Michigan that the failure of the prosecution to indorse names of res gestae witnesses on an information cannot be raised for the first time on a motion for new trial. People v. Amos (1968), 10 Mich. App. 533; People v. Prescott (1934), 268 Mich. 606; People v. Dimitroff (1948), 321 Mich. 205. Defendant demonstrates no prejudice in the failure to indorse the treating physician.

  5. People v. Harris

    31 Mich. App. 100 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 10 times

    The failure of the prosecution to indorse names of res gestae witnesses on an information cannot be raised for the first time in a motion for a new trial. People v. Prescott (1934), 268 Mich. 606; People v. Dimitroff (1948), 321 Mich. 205; People v. Amos (1968), 10 Mich. App. 533. Remarks by a prosecutor, even if improper, do not constitute reversible error where made primarily in response to matters previously discussed by defense counsel.

  6. People v. Hutson

    25 Mich. App. 109 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 3 times

    Defendant failed to object at trial to either of the alleged errors. The failure to indorse res gestae witnesses cannot be urged as error in the absence of a motion to indorse made during trial, People v. Amos (1968), 10 Mich. App. 533; People v. Prescott (1934), 268 Mich. 606, nor may it be raised for the first time on a motion for a new trial, People v. Dimitroff (1948), 321 Mich. 205. Likewise, the failure to object to the absence of Champagne and the use of his preliminary examination testimony at trial defeats defendant's appeal on this point.

  7. People v. Amos

    10 Mich. App. 533 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 14 times

    "Where no motion was made to require the indorsement of additional names on the information, the failure of the prosecuting attorney to add such names does not constitute error." (Citing People v. Prescott, 268 Mich. 606.) and at section 343, p 416:

  8. People v. Rasmus

    8 Mich. App. 239 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 14 times

    In Castelli, the first that the defendant or his counsel heard of the witness was at the trial and then a timely motion was made and denied by the trial court. People v. Prescott (1934), 268 Mich. 606; People v. Dimitroff (1948), 321 Mich. 205; People v. Turner (1952), 333 Mich. 547. These cases all hold that it is too late to complain about the failure of the prosecutor to indorse a witness when the complaint is first made on appeal or on motion for a new trial in a situation where the witness was known at the trial and no motion to indorse or produce was made.

  9. People v. McIntosh

    6 Mich. App. 62 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 26 times

    Not once during the trial did defense counsel request the indorsement of Young as a res gestae witness. In People v. Prescott (1934), 268 Mich. 606, 610, "Defendant moved for a new trial, one ground being the failure of the prosecution to indorse on the information the names of the 10-year-old sister of the prosecutrix and an adult boarder at defendant's home, who were both in another part of the house at the time of the alleged offense.

  10. People v. Dickinson

    2 Mich. App. 646 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 29 times

    He charges that the prosecutor, in effect, suppressed evidence of the findings of the physician who, at the request of the authorities, examined the prosecutrix. The prosecution counters this argument by citing People v. Prescott (1934), 268 Mich. 606, for the fact that no motion was made by defendant to require indorsement of the names on the information and that the failure of the prosecuting attorney to indorse names of witnesses not to be called does not constitute error. Specifically, the prosecution states that the trial record fails to show that any such motion to indorse was made by the defendant and that the issue is being raised for the first time on appeal.