Case Name: PEOPLE v. KETZNER
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1973-05-22
Citations: 47 Mich. App. 75
Docket Number: Docket No. 10466
Parties: PEOPLE v KETZNER
Judges: Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Holbrook and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 47
Pages: 75–95

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v KETZNER
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Appeal and Error.
A conviction should be affirmed where a review of the whole record does not suggest that the defendant did not have a fair trial or that he was in any way denied due process (MCLA 769.26; GCR 1963, 529.1).
Concurrence by Holbrook, J.
2. Searches and Seizures — Criminal Law — Evidence—Motion to Suppress — Preserving Question.
The claim that certain articles of clothing were illegally seized and should not have been admitted into evidence at trial has not been preserved for appeal where the issue is raised for the first time on appeal, no motion to suppress was made before trial, and no objection was made to the admission of the articles at trial.
3. Criminal Law — Assistance of Counsel — Effective Assistance— Appeal and Error.
The Court of Appeals does not second guess trial counsel’s strategy and tactics and it cannot be said that failure to file a motion to suppress certain articles of defendant’s clothing was an act of incompetence of trial counsel where the evidence disclosed that the defendant gave his gloves to the police voluntarily, the gloves were the only article with blood on them that matched the blood type of the victim, and the evidence concerning blood on other clothing was consistent with defendant’s claims.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 220-228, 234-240.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 545 et seq.
47 Am Jur, Searches and Seizures § 54.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 545 et seq., 895, 896.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 545 et seq., 624.
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 240.
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 820, 880-887.
4. Criminal Law — Res Gestae Witnesses — Indorsement—Preserving Question.
The failure of a defendant to move for the indorsement of known res gestae witnesses at trial precludes the issue being considered on appeal for the ñrst time.
5. Criminal Law — Prosecutor’s Remarks — Prejudice—Preserving Question.
The issue of a prosecutor's prejudicial remarks to the jury in his closing argument is not preserved for appeal where the remarks were in reference to an inference claimed to be justified by the evidence and where the defendant made only a single objection to the closing argument of the prosecutor and asked only that the prosecutor be instructed to refrain from such argument in the future and made no request for a mistrial or for a curative instruction.
6. Criminal Law — Trial—Detention and Custody — Prejudicial Conduct.
It was not reversible error for an armed guard to sit at the defense table during the defense’s final argument where (1) defendant was on trial for murder, (2) there was just one unobtrusive officer at the defense table, and (3) the trial court had good reason for believing the presence of the armed guard was necessary.
7. Homicide — Murder—Evidence—Admissibility.
Evidence was not so remote and speculative as to be inadmissible at defendant’s trial for murder where the evidence was of money found in a mailbox, the killing was accompanied by a robbery of money, the fingerprints of defendant’s wife and an employee of the restaurant in which the crime was committed wege identified on the money, and defendant and bis wife had been to the restaurant some hours before the commission of the crime but neither had engaged in a cash transaction.
Appeal from Kent, John T. Letts, J.
Submitted Division 3 May 11, 1972, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 10466.)
Decided May 22, 1973.
John Daniel Ketzner, Jr., was convicted of first-degree murder. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, James K Miller, Prosecuting Attorney, and Donald A. Johnston, III, Chief Appellate Attorney, for the people.
John Daniel Ketzner, Jr., in propria persona.
Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Holbrook 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:
O'Hara, J..
I agree with Judge Holbrook that a jury-submissible case was made by the testimony and exhibits in this case. Fact issues were created and submitted to the jury under a proper charge requiring proof of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I find no basis for disturbing the jury's verdict of guilty.
As to the claimed legal errors, all of them are within the purview of MCLA 769.26; MSA 28.1096; and GCR 1963, 529.1. The Supreme Court recently held that the statute and court rule are "different articulations of the same idea". People v Robinson, 386 Mich 551, 562 (1972). That articulation is:
"No judgment or verdict shall be set aside or reversed or a new trial be granted in any criminal case, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, unless it shall affirmatively appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice." MCLA 769.26, supra.
As mandated by Robinson, supra, and the statute itself, I have reviewed the whole record. I cannot find any suggestion that the defendant here did not have a fair trial or was in anywise denied due process. I am mindful in so holding that Robinson reaffirms what has always been the law of this state that the statute and its corollary court rule are not cure-alls for error and both must be applied within constitutional limitations. I have considered the constitutional limitations and I do not find that they have been violated as to the defendant herein.
Affirmed.
R. B. Burns, P. J., concurred.