Court Opinion

ID: 9696199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:40:55.609531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:19.558042
License: Public Domain

Danhof, P. J.
Defendant was convicted by jury trial of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp §28.305). He now appeals.
The defendant raises numerous allegations of error most of which do not merit discussion. The one issue of substance involves allegedly improper remarks made by the prosecutor in his closing argument.
While we do not condone the prosecutor’s remarks, we do not believe that a reversal is required. The defendant failed to object to the prosecutor’s remarks, and therefore, we will not reverse absent a miscarriage of justice. People v. David Smith (1969), 16 Mich App 198. Recently this Court said in People v. Rowls (1970), 28 Mich App 190, 195:
*736“It is well settled in the case of errors which are curable by a cautionary instruction that a conviction will not be reversed where the defendant has allowed the impact of the prosecutor’s remarks to go to the jury without objection. People v. Humphreys (1970), 24 Mich App 411; People v. David Smith (1969), 16 Mich App 198. Since the error here was not so prejudical that it could not have been cured by an instruction, People v. Cipriano (1927), 238 Mich 332, this assignment of error is without merit.”
The evidence against the defendant was overwhelming and we do not believe the jury could arrive at any conclusion other than that the defendant was guilty. In People v. Peck (1907), 147 Mich 84, 95, the Supreme Court said:
“We are not disposed to reverse convictions in criminal cases because of the impassioned arguments of the prosecuting officers unless we can clearly see that such arguments were unwarranted by the evidence and probably contributed to the result. The verdict of the jury is the only one they could have honestly rendered upon this record.”
Affirmed.
McGregor, J., concurred.