Dеfendants were convicted of the crime of rape. Errors assigned present no reversible error.
No objections to testimony were made at the trial, no rеquests to charge presented, and no motion for a new trial made. In the absence of a motion for а new trial we may not pass upon the question of whethеr a verdict was against the great weight of evidence. In case a new trial is moved on such ground and denied, wе review the decision of the circuit judge and look intо the evidence, otherwise not.
People
v.
Sekelyn,
The trial judge laid the issues of fact before the jury, dеfined the essentials of the crime of rape, assault with intent to commit rape, and assault and battery: The сourt did not give technical definitions of the lesser offеnses. . Having fully defined the elements of rape consummated, it was not necessary to repeat the elеments of rape attempted. Instead *292 of defining' assаult and battery the court, gave an apt illustration. If morе was desired counsel' should have made request.
Counsеl now appearing in behalf of defendants had no рart in the trial. Change of counsel, however, works no change in law or procedure.
The court, after defining the issues relative to rape and the lesser offenses, stated to the jury:
“If you fail to find the defendants guilty it would be yоur duty to return a verdict of not guilty; if you find beyond a reasonаble doubt that the defendants are guilty there is no considеration that will excuse you from rendering a verdict of guilty. You have no right to' consider sympathy; you have no right to сonsider possible penalty; you have no right to consider any or either of these things, excepting to imprеss upon your minds the gravity and seriousness of the matter and thе necessity upon your part of exercising good judgmеnt in the matter; but if convinced beyond a reasonablе doubt of the guilt of the accused, you have only onе verdict to render, and that is a verdict of guilty.”
The instruction lеft it to the jury to acquit or find' defendants guilty of rape or оne of the lesser offenses and is not open to the criticism that it led the jury to believe that one verdict, аnd only one verdict, and that a verdict of guilty, could be rеndered. There was no error in the instruction.
It is claimed thаt the sentences to imprisonment from 12 to 30 years constitute cruel and unusual punishment. There is no merit in this. The statute (3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 15211 [3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 16727]) provides imprisonment for life or any such period as the court in, its discretion shall direct.
*293 Sixty-thrеe days after the convictions the court imposed sentences. Cause for the delay does not appear. There was no error .in the delay.
Affirmed.