PEOPLE OF MI V HERBERT GODBEE JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 27, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 207242
Calhoun Circuit Court
LC No. 97-001952 FH
HERBERT GODBEE, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and W. E. Collette,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by right from his jury trial convictions of one count of felonious assault, MCL
750.82; MSA 28.277, and two counts of resisting and obstructing an officer, MCL 750.479; MSA
28.747. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On appeal, defendant argues that the prosecutor exceeded the bounds of permissible argument
on rebuttal by accusing defense counsel of “slander” and using a “shameful” defense tactic found in “all
the textbooks for defense attorneys” and in “a couple of highly publicized cases in the media.”
Defendant contends that reversal is warranted because the prosecutor’s remarks had the effect of
denigrating defense counsel, impermissibly vouching for the prosecution’s case and depriving defendant
of his right to a fair trial. We disagree.
Prosecutorial remarks which might otherwise be improper may not require reversal when they
address issues raised by defense counsel. People v Duncan, 402 Mich 1, 16; 260 NW2d 58 (1977);
People v Kennebrew, 220 Mich App 601; 560 NW2d 354 (1996), lv den 456 Mich 885 (1997).
The prosecutor’s remarks in this case are similar to the rebuttal argument at issue in Kennebrew, supra,
where the prosecutor commented that defense attorneys often attack the thoroughness of the police
investigation as a ploy to convert the case to one against the police. Although the prosecutor’s
comments in Kennebrew could be interpreted as a general attack on the class of lawyers of which the
defendant’s counsel was a member, the remarks, when viewed in full context, did not deny the
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
defendant a fair trial because they responded to defense counsel’s argument that the police conducted a
sloppy investigation followed by an incomplete interview of the defendant. Kennebrew, supra at 608.
Here, the prosecutor’s challenged remarks were in response to defense counsel’s argument
suggesting that the police officer witnesses were testifying falsely in order to cover-up an excessive use
of force by one or more of the officers A review of the prosecutor’s entire rebuttal argument shows that
after making the initial remarks challenged by defendant, the prosecutor’s remaining argument properly
focused upon the evidence, in a legitimate effort to persuade the jury that defense counsel’s police
brutality and cover-up theory was unsupported by the evidence or common sense. Consequently, as in
Kennebrew, supra, we do not find that defendant was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor’s rebuttal
argument. Furthermore, because we would reach this same conclusion even if defendant’s counsel had
timely objected to the prosecutor’s remarks, we reject defendant’s argument that defense counsel’s
failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ William E. Collette
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
