endomorphosis/Caselaw_Access_Project_JSON

1"{\"id\": \"2108342\", \"name\": \"PEOPLE v. BOYNTON\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"People v. Boynton\", \"decision_date\": \"1973-04-26\", \"docket_number\": \"Docket No. 11429\", \"first_page\": \"748\", \"last_page\": \"750\", \"citations\": \"46 Mich. App. 748\", \"volume\": \"46\", \"reporter\": \"Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.\", \"court\": \"Michigan Court of Appeals\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Michigan\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T22:34:48.712989+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"Before: Danhof, P. J., and Holbrook and Bashara, JJ.\", \"parties\": \"PEOPLE v BOYNTON\", \"head_matter\": \"PEOPLE v BOYNTON\\n1. Criminal Law \\u2014 Evidence\\u2014Identification\\u2014Alibi\\u2014Question for Jury.\\nClaims of mistaken identification by a witness and alibi are matters which deal with the credibility of witnesses and generally are questions to be decided by the jury.\\n2. Criminal Law \\u2014 Jury Verdict \\u2014 Appeal and Error.\\nThe test used by the Court of Appeals in reviewing a jury verdict in a criminal case is whether or not there was sufficient evidence upon which, if believed by the jury, the defendant could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.\\n3. Criminal Law \\u2014 New Trial \\u2014 Newly Discovered Evidence.\\nA new trial will be granted for newly discovered evidence only if there is a showing that (1) the evidence is newly discovered, (2) the evidence is not merely cumulative, (3) the evidence is such as to render a different result probable on retrial, and (4) the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have produced it at trial.\\n4. Criminal Law \\u2014 New Trial \\u2014 Newly Discovered Evidence.\\nThe trial court properly denied a defendant\\u2019s motion for new trial because of newly discovered evidence where the newly discovered evidence did not relate to the\\u2019 defendant\\u2019s guilt but only served to impeach an identification witness\\u2019s credibility because such evidence is not sufficient to make a different result probable on retrial.\\nAppeal from Bay, John X. Theiler, J.\\nSubmitted Division 3 March 9, 1973, at Lansing.\\n(Docket No. 11429.)\\nDecided April 26, 1973.\\nReferences for Points in Headnotes\\n58 Am Jur, Witnesses \\u00a7\\u00a7 862, 863.\\n5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error \\u00a7 838.\\n5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error \\u00a7\\u00a7 851, 986.\\nConrad Boynton was convicted of uttering and publishing. Defendant appeals.\\nAffirmed.\\nFrank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Eugene C. Penzien, Prosecuting Attorney, and George B. Mullison, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.\\nJames G. Orford, for defendant.\\nBefore: Danhof, P. J., and Holbrook and Bashara, JJ.\", \"word_count\": \"704\", \"char_count\": \"4206\", \"text\": \"Per Curiam.\\nDefendant was convicted of uttering and publishing and sentenced to from 4 to 14 years imprisonment.\\nDefendant first contends that the evidence adduced at trial was not sufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant argues that the identification by the bartender who cashed the check should not have been believed and that, in light of the testimony by his alibi witnesses, the evidence was insufficient. Claims of mistaken identification by a witness and alibi are matters which deal with the credibility of witnesses and generally are questions to be decided by the jury. People v Caldwell, 20 Mich App 224 (1969); People v Hughes, 26 Mich App 355 (1970).\\nFurthermore the test used by this Court in reviewing a jury verdict in a criminal case is whether or not there was sufficient evidence upon which, if believed by the jury, the defendant could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Floyd, 15 Mich App 284 (1968); People v Stewart, 36 Mich App 93 (1971). A review of the testimony in the instant case reveals ample evidence, if believed, to support a verdict of guilty.\\nDefendant further contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.\\nA new trial will be granted for newly discovered evidence only if there is a showing: (a) that the evidence is newly discovered; (b) that the evidence is not merely cumulative; (c) that the evidence is such as to render a different result probable on retrial; and (d) that the defendant could not with reasonable diligence have produced it at trial. People v Cummings 42 Mich App 108, 110 (1972); People v Kennedy, 22 Mich App 524, 528 (1970).\\nThe newly discovered evidence in the instant case does not relate to defendant's guilt as was the case in People v McAllister, 16 Mich App 217 (1969). The newly discovered evidence would, at best, serve only to impeach the bartender's credibility, which we have generally held is not sufficient to make a different result probable on retrial. People v Kennedy, supra; People v Winstanley, 20 Mich App 528 (1969). We feel this rule is applicable to the case at bar and do not believe that a different result would occur on retrial.\\nAffirmed.\"}"