Case Name: PEOPLE v. SHAW
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1968-03-27
Citations: 10 Mich. App. 315
Docket Number: Docket No. 2,481
Parties: PEOPLE v. SHAW.
Judges: Levin and Sullivan, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 10
Pages: 315–316

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. SHAW.
1. Appeal and Error — Criminal Law — Sufficiency op Evidence.
Conviction of a erime will not be reversed by an appellate court if there is evidence in the reeord which, if believed, will support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Criminal Law — Sufficiency of Evidence — Carnal Knowledge of Eem:ale Patient.
Conviction of carnally knowing a female patient of a State institution based partially upon contradictory and conflicting testimony of complaining witness is affirmed, where a review of the reeord establishes that there was sufficient evidence, if believed, to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doiibt (CL 1948, § 750.341).
References for Points in Heádnotes
[1] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 948.
[2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 786, 883.
Appeal from Lenawee; Martin (Rex B.), J.
Submitted Division 2 May 2, 1967, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 2,481.)
Decided March 27, 1968.
Damon Shaw was convicted of carnal knowledge of a female committed to a State institution.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Harvey A. Koselka, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Russell & Bird, for defendant.

Opinion:
T. Gr. Kavanagh, P. J.
This is an appeal from a conviction of a violation of CL 1948, § 750.341 (Stat Arm 1954 Rev § 28.573) which makes it a crime to carnally know a female patient in a State or county institution.
The only error asserted on appeal is that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.
Appellant argues that the complaining witness testified in a contradictory and conflicting manner and that such testimony should not serve to support a conviction.
The rule on review is that if there is evidence in the record which, if believed, will support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt we will not reverse. People v. Williams (1962), 368 Mich 494, 501.
We have examined the record carefully, and despite some questionable cross-examination by the prosecutor of his main witness, we have discovered no reversible error. We are satisfied that the defendant had a fair trial.
Affirmed.
Levin and Sullivan, JJ., concurred.