People v. Howard
Michigan Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceLevin, J.
The shotgun was not identified as the very gun used when the crime was committed, nor was it part of a chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient in the aggregate to support a verdict or finding of guilty. It should not have been admitted in evidence.
We, nevertheless, concur in the affirmance of Howard’s conviction of armed robbery because the attention of the trial judge was not directed to the fact that the gun was not part of such a chain of circumstantial evidence and because we are satisfied that the admission of the gun was of relatively little importance and if a new trial were held…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- The PEOPLE v. JonesIllinois Supreme Court · 1961
- People v. KellyMichigan Supreme Court · 1971
- State v. CrawfordUtah Supreme Court · 1922
- State v. ThompsonOregon Supreme Court · 1961
- People v. CourtneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.