
    PEOPLE v. JIMMIE RAGLAND
    1. Criminal Law—Appeal and Error—Evidence—Weight—Preserving Question.
    Failure to move for a new trial in a criminal case forecloses review of the issue of weight of the evidence on appeal.
    2. Criminal Law—Appeal and Error—Evidence—Sufficiency— Preserving Question.
    Failure to move for a new trial in a criminal case does not prevent a defendant from pressing his claim on appeal that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction.
    3. Evidence — Homicide — Manslaughter — Accessories — Sufficiency.
    Evidence was sufficient to go to the jury and was sufficient to support a conviction of manslaughter as accessories to a homicide where the record shows that the defendants were involved throughout the transaction even though it reveals no evidence that they actually shot the deceased (MCLA § 750.321).
    Beferences for Points in Headnotes
    [1, 2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 555.
    [3] 40 Am Jur 2d, Homicide § 29.
    Who other than actor is liable for manslaughter. 95 ALB2d 175.
    Appeal from Recorder’s Court for the City of Detroit, Frank G. Schemanske, J.
    Submitted Division 1 May 11, 1971, at Grand Rapids.
    (Docket No. 10211.)
    Decided June 28, 1971.
    Jimmie Ragland and Norman Ragland were convicted of second-degree murder; Johnnie Ragland and Jessie Ragland were convicted of manslaughter. Defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cabalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Michael R. Mueller, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Charles Rubinoff, for defendants on appeal.
    Before: T. M. Burns, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Fitzgerald, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

Defendants Jimmie and Norman Ragland were found guilty of second degree murder; *3defendants Johnnie and Jessie Ragland were found guilty of manslaughter. The people have filed a motion to affirm pursuant to GCR 1963, 817-.5(3).

Defendants Jimmie and Norman Ragland did not make a motion for a new trial and are here attacking the weight of the evidence. Not having made the requisite motion, that issue is foreclosed from review. People v. Mattison (1970), 26 Mich App 453. Defendants Johnnie and Jessie Ragland also failed to move for a new trial, but this does not prevent them from pressing their claim that the evidence was legally insufficient. They were charged as accessories, the people contending that they aided and abetted the commission of this homicide. While there is no evidence that either Johnnie or Jessie actually shot the deceased, they were involved throughout; and there was certainly enough evidence to go to the jury under the standard of People v. Hogan (1967), 9 Mich App 78.

A complete review of the transcript in this case reveals that the questions presented are so insubstantial as to warrant no argument or formal submission.

Accordingly, the people’s motion to affirm is granted. 
      
       MCLA § 750.317 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549).
     
      
       MCLA § 750.321 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.553).
     
      
       MCLA § 767.39 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.979).
     