Case Name: PEOPLE v. HENSON
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1978-11-28
Citations: 87 Mich. App. 328
Docket Number: Docket No. 77-1601
Parties: PEOPLE v HENSON
Judges: Before: N. J. Kaufman, P.J., and Beasley and P. R. Mahinske, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 87
Pages: 328–331

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v HENSON
Docket No. 77-1601.
Submitted June 13, 1978, at Detroit.
Decided November 28, 1978.
Jarrell Henson was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to deliver, Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Michael J. Connor, J. Defendant appeals, claiming (1) that it was reversible error to permit evidence of unproven criminal activity, other than the crime with which the defendant was charged, allegedly involving a third party and the defendant to be placed before the jury, and (2) the prosecutor’s remarks in closing argument were prejudicial. Held:
1. Evidence of defendant’s involvement with the third party was admissible as part of the res gestae of the crime charged.
2. Any error in the prosecutor’s closing argument was cured by timely court instructions to the jury.
Affirmed.
N. J. Kaufman, P.J., dissented. He would hold that a prosecutor’s remarks should not appeal to the civic duty of a jury to convict a defendant or express his opinion as to a defendant’s guilt; a new trial is required where the prosecutor’s improper argument was not cured by proper instructions to the jury.
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Evidence—Res Gestae — Admissibility.
Generally, evidence of unproven criminal activity, other than that with which a defendant is charged, involving the defendant and a third party, may not be placed before a jury; however, there may be an exception to this rule where the defendant’s actions in the alleged criminal activity are part of the res gestae of the crime charged.
References for Points in Headnotes
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§ 320 et seq., 708, 713, 715.
75 Am Jur 2d, Trial §§ 317, 708.
Propriety and prejudicial effect of prosecuting attorney’s arguing new matter or points in his closing summation in criminal case. 26 ALR3d 1409.
75 Am Jur 2d, Trial §§ 225-234, 317, 708.
Guilt of accused, propriety and effect of prosecuting attorney’s argument to jury indicating his belief of knowledge as to. 50 ALR2d 978.
Propriety and prejudicial effect of prosecutor’s argument to jury indicating his belief or knowledge as to guilt of accused — modern cases. 88 ALR3d 449.
2. Criminal Law — Prosecutors—Closing Argument — Prejudicial Error — Jury Instructions.
Error in a prosecutor’s closing argument may be cured by a timely instruction of the court.
Dissent by N. J. Kaufman, P.J.
3. Criminal Law — Prosecutor’s Remarks — Jury—Civic Duty to Convict — Improper Argument — Cure by Instructions — Prejudice.
Prosecutorial remarks which appeal to the civic duty of a jury to convict a defendant and which express his opinion of a defendant’s guilt are improper; a new trial is required where the prejudice to a defendant, created by the prosecutor’s improper argument, was not cured by the court’s jury instructions.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward R. Wilson, Principal Attorney, Appeals, and Timothy A. Baughman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Gerald M. Lorence, for defendant on appeal.
Before: N. J. Kaufman, P.J., and Beasley and P. R. Mahinske, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Jarrell Henson was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to deliver, in violation of MCL 335.341(l)(a); MSA 18.1070(41)(l)(a), and sentenced to not more than 40 nor less than 10 years imprisonment. He appeals as of right.
An examination of the record and briefs dis closes no prejudicial error. The testimony of which defendant complains was properly admitted as part of the res gestae. People v Savage, 225 Mich 84, 86; 195 NW 669 (1923), People v Scott, 61 Mich App 91; 232 NW2d 315 (1975). Any error in the closing argument was cured by a timely instruction. People v Hall, 396 Mich 650, 656; 242 NW2d 377 (1976), People v Castaneda, 81 Mich App 453, 462; 265 NW2d 367 (1978).
Affirmed.