People v. William Clark

10 Citing cases

  1. People v. Trammell

    429 N.W.2d 810 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 4 times

    Enunciating what has become known as the "common sense of society" test, the Hicks Court, quoting from State v Millard, 18 Vt. 574, 577; 46 Am Dec 170 (1846), stated: People v William Clark, 68 Mich. App. 48, 52; 241 N.W.2d 756 (1976); People v Dexter, 6 Mich. App. 247, 252-253; 148 N.W.2d 915 (1967). 98 Mich. 86, 90; 56 N.W. 1102 (1893).

  2. People v. Perry

    No. 344863 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2020)

    Remand for an evidentiary hearing regarding whether newly discovered evidence requires a new trial is inappropriate when the allegations in the briefs and supporting affidavit "have no official record support." People v Clark, 68 Mich App 48, 53; 241 NW2d 756 (1976). See also People v Williams, 275 Mich App 194, 200; 737 NW2d 797 (2007) (regarding a motion to remand for a hearing regarding ineffective assistance of counsel).

  3. People v. Stevens

    No. 327160 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    When SA, another of Tingley's stepdaughters, subsequently testified that DA had "false memory syndrome" and "liked to make up stories," Tingley's attorney commented to the prosecutor, "Would you like to laugh a little louder," to which the prosecutor replied, "I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under oath." In People v Clark, 68 Mich App 48, 51-52; 241 NW2d 756 (1976), the prosecutor laughed "during the course of" a defense witness's testimony. In contrast, in the present case, the prosecutor allegedly laughed only in response to SA's testimony regarding false memory syndrome.

  4. People v. Emmerich

    175 Mich. App. 283 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 9 times
    Following the three-justice opinion in People v Howell, 396 Mich. 16

    A number of panels of this Court have concluded that the Dexter "common sense of society" test remains viable after Howell, since the Howell standard was approved by only three justices. See, e.g., People v William Clark, 68 Mich. App. 48, 52-53; 241 N.W.2d 756 (1976), People v Masten, 96 Mich. App. 127, 132; 292 N.W.2d 171 (1980), rev'd on other grounds 414 Mich. 16; 322 N.W.2d 547 (1982), and People v Dauer, 131 Mich. App. 839; 346 N.W.2d 599 (1984). "Viable" or not, however, Dexter is not, under principles of stare decisis, binding upon us; one panel of this Court is not bound to follow the opinion of another panel on any question of law.

  5. People v. Myers

    161 Mich. App. 215 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 5 times
    In Myers, the Court of Appeals held that a male person's grabbing and massaging over clothing the groin area of another male person did not constitute gross indecency.

    Under these circumstances it appears, and subsequent panels of this Court have held, that the common sense of society test remains viable after Howell, though somewhat limited. People v William Clark, 68 Mich. App. 48, 52-53; 241 N.W.2d 756 (1976); People v Masten, 96 Mich. App. 127, 132; 292 N.W.2d 171 (1980), rev'd on other grounds 414 Mich. 16; 322 N.W.2d 547 (1982). On the other hand, the commentary to the Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions notes the confusion in this area but appears to rely upon Justice LEVIN'S definition of gross indecency.

  6. People v. Lyles

    100 Mich. App. 232 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 3 times
    In Lyles, while we referred separately to the Solomon and Kachar criteria, it is apparent that the Solomon factors merely consist of two of the Kachar factors.

    A remand is thus unnecessary. People v William Clark, 68 Mich. App. 48; 241 N.W.2d 756 (1976)."

  7. People v. Masten

    96 Mich. App. 127 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 9 times
    In Masten, defendant was charged with attempting to procure an act of gross indecency when he approached three police officers and offered to perform acts of fellatio for the sum of $25. The Masten Court concluded that defendant was amply warned that the act of attempting to procure the commission of a private act of fellatio between consenting adult males was prohibited by the gross indecency statute.

    Two panels of this Court have found that Howell's section II announced no more than the law of that case. People v William Clark, 68 Mich. App. 48, 53; fn 1; 241 N.W.2d 756 (1976), People v Jones, 75 Mich. App. 261, 272, fn 5; 254 N.W.2d 863 (1977). Without the limitations set forth in Howell's section II, the gross indecency statute operates by its terms to control both public and private conduct.

  8. People v. Clemons

    282 N.W.2d 838 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 14 times

    Therefore, any error remains preserved for appeal only if it resulted in manifest injustice. MCL 769.26; MSA 28.1096, People v Duncan, 402 Mich. 1, 15-16; 260 N.W.2d 58 (1977), People v William Clark, 68 Mich. App. 48, 51-52; 241 N.W.2d 756 (1976). We do not find that standard met in the case at bar.

  9. People v. Maynard

    84 Mich. App. 437 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 2 times

    As to defendant's third claim concerning the prosecution's comments on cross-examination and in closing argument, we do not believe defendant was deprived of a fair trial where no objection was made to these comments during cross-examination or following closing argument. People v William Clark, 68 Mich. App. 48, 52; 241 N.W.2d 756 (1976). However, even were we to consider defendant's claim on appeal, we find the prosecution's remarks unplanned and the remainder of his cross-examination of defendant permissible.

  10. People v. Belenor

    71 Mich. App. 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 12 times
    In People v Belenor, 71 Mich. App. 10, 13; 246 N.W.2d 355 (1976), the Court considered a situation where the witness was unable to identify anyone at a pretrial photographic identification, but did identify the defendant at the examination.

    A remand is thus unnecessary. People v William Clark, 68 Mich. App. 48; 241 N.W.2d 756 (1976). Defendant's more persuasive contention is that the preliminary examination was itself impermissibly suggestive.