Case Name: PEOPLE v. SMITH
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1969-07-28
Citations: 18 Mich. App. 320
Docket Number: Docket No. 5,216
Parties: PEOPLE v. SMITH
Judges: Before: T. M. Burns, P. J., and Fitzgerald and R. B. Burns, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 18
Pages: 320–321

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. SMITH
Criminal Law — Trial — Conduct of Prosecutor — Inflammatory Comments — Review. . • .
Prosecutor’s comments during rebuttal at defendant’s trial, for assault with intent to commit rape alleged to be so inflammatory as to deny defendant a fair trial, held, not grounds for reversal, where the trial court, whose attention had been directed to the comments, ruled that they were proper arguments and review of the record and transcript convinces the Court of Appeals that the lower court ruling was correct.
Reference for Points in Eeadnote
53 Am Jur, Trial §§ 458, 459.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Vincent J. Brennan, J.
Submitted Division 3 July 1, 1969, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 5,216.)
Decided July 28, 1969.
Jerry Smith was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape. 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.
Brennan ds Kurts, for defendant on appeal.
Before: T. M. Burns, P. J., and Fitzgerald and R. B. Burns, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant Jerry Smith, was tried by a jury and convicted of assault with intent to commit rape contrary to MCLA § 750.85 (Stat Ann 1962 Eev § 28.280). On appeal he contends that certain comments of the prosecutor during rebuttal argument to the jury were so inflammatory as to deprive him of a fair trial. The appellee has filed a motion to affirm the conviction.
The comments complained of were brought to the attention of the trial court, who held that they were proper arguments. Our examination of the brief of defendant, the motion to affirm and the record convinces us that the lower court was correct and that defendant did have , a fair and impartial trial. The question presented here on appeal is unsubstantial and requires no formal argument or submission.
The motion to affirm the defendant's conviction is granted.