Court Opinion

ID: 9674856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:36:37.258023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.954844
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
Defendant, Damon Blair Jackson, was charged with armed robbery of a jewelry store in Detroit and felony-firearm. The jury found defendant guilty of armed robbery, in violation of MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797, but not guilty of felony-firearm. Defendant was sentenced to not less than 20 years nor more than 30 years in prison, after which he appeals as of right, raising two issues.
First, defendant claims that the trial court erred reversibly by admitting into evidence photographs of the complainant, which were highly prejudicial and inflammatory. We disagree.
The applicable test is whether the trial court exercised sound discretion in permitting admission *140of photographs which might be inflammatory.1 The photographs were relevant and strong evidence in support of the prosecutor’s reliance upon the following portion of the statute:2
"If an aggravated assault or serious injury is inflicted by any person while committing an armed robbery as defined in this section, the sentence shall be not less than 2 years’ imprisonment in the state prison.” (Emphasis added.)
Thus, in exercising her discretion, the trial judge did not err in admitting these photographs which were relevant, admissible, and appeared to have probative value.3
Second, defendant claims that the prosecutor’s closing argument was so prejudicial as to constitute error requiring reversal. We note that defendant did not make any objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument or rebuttal argument at the time of trial. As a result, the trial judge did not have any opportunity to make a corrective instruction if, indeed, the prosecutor’s arguments constituted misconduct. While the prosecutor’s arguments verged upon rising to the level of the so-called civil duty argument that we have disapproved of,4 the proofs in this case were overwhelming and, consequently, we decline to find any miscarriage of justice.
Affirmed.

 People v Myers, 30 Mich App 409, 429; 186 NW2d 381 (1971).

 MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797.

 People v Paintman, 92 Mich App 412; 285 NW2d 206 (1979), rev’d on other grounds 412 Mich 518; 315 NW2d 418 (1982).

 People v Biondo, 76 Mich App 155; 256 NW2d 60 (1977), lv den 402 Mich 835 (1977).