
    PEOPLE v HALL
    1. Criminal Law — Speedy Trial — Failure to Demand.
    Contention that an eight-month delay between granting a motion for a handwriting expert and a motion for trial adjournment deprived a criminal defendant of a speedy trial was not reviewed on appeal where defendant did not make a demand for a speedy trial.
    2. Criminal Law — 'Dependant Testifying — Credibility—Belief in God — Preserving Question.
    An appellate court will not reverse a criminal conviction merely because the prosecutor asked the defendant if he believed in a Supreme Being where no objection was raised below and no manifest injustice appears on the record.
    References for Points in Headnotes
    
       21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 254.
    
       53 Am Jur, Trial § 351.
    Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Henry L. Heading, J.
    Submitted Division 1 February 7, 1972, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 10842.)
    Decided March 28, 1972.
    Leave to appeal applied for.
    James D. Hall was convicted of uttering and publishing a forged instrument. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Garnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Leonard Meyers, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      
      Arthur J. Tarnow, State Appellate Defender, and Martin I. Beisig, Assistant Defender, for defendant.
    Before: Bronson, P. J., and Y. J. Brennan and O’Hara, JJ.
    
      
       Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.
    
   Per Curiam.

The defendant was convicted by a

jury in Detroit Becorder’s Court of uttering and publishing, MCLA 750.249; MSA 28.446. He was sentenced by the trial court to a term of 5 to 14 years and appeals as of right.

Defendant raises two issues on appeal. First, he alleges that an eight-month delay between granting a motion for a handwriting expert and a motion for trial adjournment deprived him of his right to a speedy trial. No demand for a speedy trial was made. The law is clear that, absent such a demand, defendant may not complain on appeal. People v Duncan, 373 Mich 650 (1964); People v Miklovich, 375 Mich 536 (1965); People v Love, 31 Mich App 85 (1971).

Defendant also contends that the prosecutor committed reversible error by asking defendant if he believed in a Supreme Being. MCLA 600.1436; MSA 27A.1436. No objection was raised below. This Court will not pass on issues raised for the first time on appeal unless manifest injustice appears on the record. People v White, 25 Mich App 176 (1970). A review of the record reveals no such injustice.

Affirmed.  