Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

PEOPLE v. RUZICKA

PER CURIAM.

On appeal to circuit court from his conviction in municipal court for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor contrary to MCLA § 257.625 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.2325), a jury found defendant guilty of the same offense. He was sentenced and he appeals.

It is defendant's contention that he was entitled to the benefit of MCLA § 257.625b (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 9.2325[2]), and that it was reversible error for the trial judge to refuse to give a requested instruction that defendant might be found guilty of impaired driving under the latter statute.

December 23, 1966, defendant was arrested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. MCLA § 257.625b was added by PA 1966, No 243, effective March 10, 1967. In denying defendant's requested instruction on impaired driving, the trial judge ruled that MCLA § 257.625b was ex post facto and inapplicable to the offense of December 23, 1966.

The trial judge was correct; see People v. Marshall (1961), 362 Mich. 170, 174.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. RUZICKA
(Oct 27, 1969)