Case Name: PEOPLE v. ROSHINSKY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1972-01-20
Citations: 37 Mich. App. 754
Docket Number: Docket No. 11136
Parties: PEOPLE v ROSHINSKY
Judges: Before: Lesinski, C. J., and V. J. Brennan and Targonski, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 37
Pages: 754–756

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v ROSHINSKY
Opinion op the Court
1. Appeal and Error — Unsubstantial Question — Motion to Affirm.
A motion to affirm is granted where upon examination of the briefs and records it is manifest that the question sought to be reviewed is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission.
Concurrence by Lesinski, 0. J.
2. Criminal Law — Lesser Included Offenses — Instructions to Jury — Reversible Error.
Reversible error occurs in jury instructions excluding lesser included offense only where the trial judge affirmatively excludes lesser included offenses by stating “There are no included offenses”; however, a better rule of law would not depend on the application of a magic-word doctrine.
References for Points in Headnotes
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 932.
53 Am Jur, Trial § 796 et seq.
Appeal from Wayne, Richard M. Maher, J.
Submitted Division 1 October 26, 1971, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 11136).
Decided January 20, 1972.
Leave to appeal denied, 388 Mich 761.
Henry Roshinsky was convicted of breaking and entering an office building with intent to commit larceny. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Gahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Domimck R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Gerard A. Poéhlman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Gerald M. Lorence, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Lesinski, C. J., and V. J. Brennan and Targonski, JJ.
Former Circuit Judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
V. J. Brennan, J.
Defendant was tried and convicted of breaking and entering an office building with intent to commit a larceny therein (MCLA 750.110; MSA 28.305) and appeals. A motion to affirm has been filed by the people.
Upon an examination of the briefs and records it is manifest that the question sought to be reviewed is so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission.
Motion to affirm is granted.
Targonski, J., concurred.