People v. Ford ( 1975 )

O’Hara, J.

(concurring in result). My approach to this case is somewhat different from that of Judge Allen.

There was direct unequivocal testimony by the manager of the motel that defendant demanded from him money at gunpoint. After getting the money and while attempting to flee the scene the manager shot him. He fell to the floor. A police officer recovered a bundle of currency at his feet. Because of insufficient chain-of-custody testimony the money was not identified as that taken in the robbery. It was a thoroughly permissible inference by the jury that the currency found was that so taken.

The defendant testified to a completely different version of the event. He claimed he was refused room rental when he asked for it, and was shot as he left the place. He admitted he had a "starter pistol” on his person at the time and place in question.

Which one the jury chose to believe was their sole prerogative. They chose to believe the manager. That issue ends there.

The other issues Judge Allen discusses may well have been procedural errors. To me they do not individually or collectively rise to constitutional or reversible level. Proof of defendant’s guilt beyond any reasonable doubt was adduced.

There is a statute in this state which reads as follows:

"No judgment or verdict shall be set aside or reversed or a new trial be granted by any court of this state in any criminal case, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court, after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” (Emphasis supplied.) MCLA 769.26; MSA 28.1096.

I presume it means what it says. I have, as the statute demands, made an "examination of the entire cause”. I have no reservation in saying that the errors complained of did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

I too vote to affirm.