Case Name: PEOPLE v. MITCHELL
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1978-09-20
Citations: 85 Mich. App. 757
Docket Number: Docket No. 77-4057
Parties: PEOPLE v MITCHELL
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: 85
Pages: 757–763

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v MITCHELL
Docket No. 77-4057.
Submitted June 14, 1978, at Detroit.
Decided September 20, 1978.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Robert L. Mitchell was convicted of assault with intent to rob while armed and possession of a firearm while in commision of or attempting to commit a felony, Wayne Circuit Court, Thomas Roumell, J. The defendant appeals, claiming that the felony-firearm statute in his case violated his guarantee against being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense, that the prosecutor’s closing arguments were improper and that the trial court’s failure to give an instruction on lesser included offenses requires reversal. Held:
1. The felony-firearm statute is not an unconstitutional violation of the Federal and state double jeopardy clauses as applied to the defendant.
2. The prosecutor’s remarks were improper, but the defendant’s failure to object during trial precludes reversal.
3. Failure to request instructions on lesser included offenses generally bars relief.
Affirmed.
N. J. Kaufman, P. J., dissented. He would hold that the defendant was twice convicted by separate counts involving identical proofs and that, therefore, this defendant’s constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy have been violated by the felony-firearm statute as applied to the facts of the case at bar. He would reverse the felony-firearm conviction.
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Constitutional Law — Double Jeopardy — Felony — Firearm—Statutes.
The felony-firearm statute is not an unconstitutional violation of the Federal and state double jeopardy clauses as applied to a defendant who has been convicted of 1) assault with intent to rob while armed and 2) possession of a firearm while in commission of or attempting to commit a felony arising out of the same incident, with the defendant receiving two consecutive sentences for the two convictions (MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424[2]).
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 547.
[2] 75 Am Jur 2d, Trial §§ 317, 906-909.
[3] 75 Am Jur 2d, Trial § 877.
[4] 75 Am Jur 2d, Trial §§ 919-922.
[5] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 189.
[6] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 166.
2. Criminal Law — Argument of Counsel — Curative Instructions —Preserving Issue.
Reversible error does not result from a trial court’s failure to give cautionary instructions to the jury in response to a prosecutor’s allegedly improper closing argument where defense counsel neither objects to the closing argument nor requests a cautionary instruction and where appropriate instructions would cure any prejudice.
3. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Lesser Included Offenses — Request for Instruction — Appeal and Error.
A defendant’s failure to request an instruction to the jury on lesser included offenses generally precludes the Court of Appeals from giving any relief for the alleged error.
Dissent by N. J. Kaufman, P. J.
4. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Felony-Firearm—Curative Instruction.
An allegedly improper instruction to the jury wherein a trial judge instructed the jury that before the jury could convict a defendant on a charge of felony-ñrearm they must ñrst ñnd the defendant guilty of a ñrst charge, assault with intent to rob while armed, did not result in reversible error where any error that may have resulted regarding the instruction was timely corrected by the trial court before the jury retired to deliberate.
5. Criminal Law — Constitutional Law — Double Jeopardy — Felony-Firearm — Dual Convictions.
Conviction of a defendant on two counts, one for assault- with intent to rob while armed and one for felony-ñrearm arising out of the same incident, wherein the prosecution’s responsibility is to prove the same elements for each offense, violates the prohibitions against double jeopardy embodied in the Federal and state constitutions.
6. Constitutional Law — Double Jeopardy — Legislative Intent.
Guarantees in the United States and the Michigan Constitutions against being twice put in jeopardy for a single offense cannot be overridden by the Legislature saying that it intends double convictions and double punishments for the same crime.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward R. Wilson, Principal Attorney, Appeals, and Robert M. Morgan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Carl Ziemba, 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.
Defendant attempted to plead guilty to a two-count information involving a charge of assault with intent to rob while armed in violation of MCL 750.89; MSA 28.284, and possession of a firearm while in commission of or attempting to commit a felony in violation of MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2).
The trial judge rejected the plea as being factually insufficient. The case then went to trial and the jury convicted defendant under both counts. After sentence to the mandatory two years under felony-firearm and, thereafter, not less than five nor more than ten years under assault with intent to rob while armed, defendant appeals as of right.
We find that defendant's claims of error are without merit. Three issues warrant comment.
We reject defendant's claim that the felony-firearm statute is an unconstitutional violation of the Federal and state double jeopardy clauses as applied to him in this case for the reasons set forth in People v Walter Johnson.
We agree with the dissent that the prosecutor's remarks, as quoted in the dissent, were improper, but that failure to object during trial precludes reversal now.
We also agree with the dissent that failure in the trial court to request an instruction regarding lesser included offenses of assault with intent to rob while armed precludes reversal of the conviction and grant of a new trial.
As indicated, we believe defendant's other claims of error are without sufficient merit to reverse defendant's convictions.
Affirmed.
85 Mich App 654; 272 NW2d 605 (1978).
People v Hall, 396 Mich 650; 242 NW2d 377 (1976).