Case Name: PEOPLE v. McDONALD
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1969-04-22
Citations: 17 Mich. App. 88
Docket Number: Docket No. 5,297
Parties: PEOPLE v. McDONALD
Judges: BEFORE: Holbrook, P. J., and Fitzgerald and T. M. Burns, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 17
Pages: 88–89

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. McDONALD
1. ' Criminal Law — Trial—Mistrial—Discretion.
The grant or denial of a motion for mistrial rests within the discretion of the trial court, but should not be granted in consequence of any mere irregularity which is not prejudicial to the rights of a criminal defendant.
2. Criminal Law — Trial—Prejudice—Appeal and Error.
Alleged errors in the conduct of a criminal trial will not be reviewed unless the facts connected therewith so appear in the reeord that the court can see that the defendant has been prejudiced.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 53 Am Jur, Trial § 974.
[2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 545.
Appeal from Oakland, William R. Beasley, J. ■Submitted Division 2 March 18, 1969, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 5,297.)
Decided April 22, 1969.
Paul M. McDonald was convicted of first-degree murder. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Thomas G. Plunkett, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Douglas Chartrand, for defendant on appeal.
BEFORE: Holbrook, P. J., and Fitzgerald and T. M. Burns, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Paul M. McDonald was convicted of first-degree murder by jury in Oakland county circuit court. CL 1948, § 750.316 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.548). He was sentenced to life imprisonment on February 13, 1968. During trial, motion for mistrial was made on tbe basis that certain proposed pictorial exhibits bad been seen by some of tbe jurors while in tbe bands of a witness. The motion was denied, and some of tbe pictures were admitted into evidence, while one was rejected.
On appeal tbe sole claim of error is that denial of tbe motion for mistrial was an abuse of discretion. Tbe people have filed a brief and a motion to affirm.
After reviewing the briefs of tbe parties, tbe motion to affirm, and tbe trial record, we have concluded that tbe record does not show affirmatively fácts upon which an inference of prejudice may be based. A mistrial should not be declared in consequence of any mere irregularity which is not prejudicial to tbe rights of defendant. People v. Qualls (1968), 9 Mich App 689, 693. Alleged errors in tbe conduct of tbe trial will not be reviewed unless tbe facts connected therewith so appear in tbe record that tbe Court can see that accused has been prejudiced. People v. Nick (1960), 360 Mich 219, 229, 230.
Affirmed.