Case Name: PEOPLE v. JACKSON
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1969-06-24
Citations: 17 Mich. App. 675
Docket Number: Docket No. 5,631
Parties: PEOPLE v. JACKSON
Judges: BEFORE: Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Danhof, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 17
Pages: 675–676

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. JACKSON
Appeal and Error — Issues First Raised on Appeal.
The Court of Appeals will not entertain issues raised for the first time on appeal unless a elear injustice is demonstrated (GCR 1963, 516.2).
Reference for Points in Headnote
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 726.
Appeal from Genesee, Elza H. Papp, J. Submitted Division 2 June 4,1969, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 5,631.)
Decided June 24, 1969.
Leon Jackson was convicted of breaking and entering a store. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengo ski, Solicitor General, Robert F. Leonard, Prosecuting Attorney, and Donald A. Kuebler, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Robert L. Segar, for defendant on appeal.
BEFORE: Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Danhof, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering a store on April 25, 1967, contrary to MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 28.305), and thereafter was sentenced to 6-1/2 to 10 years in prison.
At the trial, defendant conceded the breaking and entering, but presented the defense that he was too intoxicated to form the specific intent to commit a larceny or felony which was a necessary element of the statutory crime charged.
On appeal, defendant raises two issues. The first is did the trial court erroneously instruct the jury on the issue of intoxication as a defense? The other is did the remarks by the prosecution in closing argument constitute reversible error? No objection was made at the time of trial to either the court's instruction, or the remarks made by the prosecutor. This Court will not entertain issues raised for the first time on appeal unless a clear injustice is demonstrated. GCR 1963, 516.2, People v. Omell (1968), 15 Mich App 154; People v. Keiswetter (1967), 7 Mich App 334; People v. Dexter (1967), 6 Mich App 247; People v. Willis (1965), 1 Mich App 428. The record herein does not demonstrate that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
Affirmed.