Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit, Joseph E. Maher, J.
M. F. Cavanagh, P. J., and R. B. Burns and F. C. Ziem,* JJ.
1. -- Constitutional Law -- Right to Remain Silent.
Reversal of a defendant's conviction is required if testimony is elicited at trial that the defendant remained silent at the time of his arrest; but if testimony is elicited that the defendant stated he did not remember where he had been on the date in question, that testimony is admissible, because the defendant's constitutional right to remain silent is not involved.
2. -- Evidence -- Hearsay -- Objections -- Preserving Question.
The issue of the admission into evidence of hearsay testimony is not preserved for appellate review where no objection to the hearsay testimony was made at the trial.
3. -- Prosecutors -- Improper Remarks -- Objections -- Preserving Question -- Curative Instructions.
A defendant's failure to object to improper remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument precludes appellate review unless an objection and appropriate curative instruction could not have eliminated the prejudice arising from the prosecutor's statements.
4. -- Prosecutors -- Improper Remarks -- Prejudice -- Curative Instructions.
A criminal defendant is entitled to a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct where the prosecutor, in his closing argument, vouched for the guilt of the defendant, denigrated the role of defense counsel, and made improper remarks about the alibi defense and the alibi witnesses; even though these remarks were not objected to, a new trial should be ordered where the Court of Appeals is persuaded that the prejudicial impact could not have been cured by an instruction.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cavanagh
Bennie Hunt was convicted of armed robbery. Defendant appeals.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of armed robbery, MCLA 750.529; MSA 28.797, and sentenced to 7-1/2 to 15 years in prison. He appeals of right.
The case against defendant was based primarily upon the identification testimony of three witnesses, all employees of the credit union. The first witness, the teller who was actually robbed, identified defendant in court as the assailant, although she had been unable to identify him in a pretrial lineup. The other two witnesses identified defendant in court as having been in the credit union on the ...