Case Name: PEOPLE v. FOWLKES
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1970-06-30
Citations: 25 Mich. App. 157
Docket Number: Docket No. 7,387
Parties: PEOPLE v. FOWLKES
Judges: Before: Holbrook, P. J., and R. B. Burns and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 25
Pages: 157–158

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. FOWLKES
Bobbery — Bobbery Armed — Instructions—Elements of Crime— —Failure to Object.
The court’s instructions adequately informed the jury that the defendant had to be armed for the jury to return a verdict of guilty of robbery armed where the court, on several occasions, gave instructions that the defendant was being charged with the offense of robbery armed and the phrase “being armed with a dangerous weapon” was further defined and where the instructions were not objected to (GCB 1963, 516).
Beference for Points in Headnote
46 Am Jur, Bobbery §§ 58-60.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Elvin L. Davenport, J.
Submitted Division 1 June 12, 1970, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 7,387.)
Decided June 30, 1970.
Leave to appeal denied August 18, 1970. 383 Mich 819.
Martin Fowlkes was convicted of armed robbery. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Gahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Garnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Luvenia D. Dockett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Arthur J. Tarnow (Defenders’ Office — Legal Aid and Defender Association of Detroit), for defendant on appeal.
Before: Holbrook, P. J., and R. B. Burns and O’Hara, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant was convicted on February 19, 1969, of robbery armed by a jury.
On appeal defendant charges that the instructions to the jury were improper. We have reviewed the entire instructions and have come to the conclusion that reversible error is not contained therein. Specifically we note that the instructions on reasonable doubt were adequate although lengthy. Additionally, we note that on several occasions the court instructed the jury that the defendant was being charged for the offense of robbery armed. The phrase "being armed with a dangerous weapon" was further defined. Although the instructions of the court could have been more explicit, they were not objected to, but instead were accepted by defense counsel. GrCR 1963, 516. We conclude that the instructions adequately informed the jury that the defendant had to be armed in order for the jury to bring back a verdict of guilty of robbery armed. There was no reversible error committed in this case concerning the objections of the defendant raised on this appeal. Cf. People v. Price (1970), 21 Mich App 694.
Affirmed.
MCLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.797).