Defendant, Norman Midgyett, was tried before a jury for the offense оf larceny in a building. MCLA 750.360; MSA 28.592. He was convicted on February 29, 1972 and was sentenced on March 16, 1972 to a term of from 3-1/2 to 4 years in the Southern Michigan Prison. Defendant’s appeal is by right.
The offense occurred shortly prior to Christmas in 1971. On December 10, 1971 the defendant was observed by the security personnel of the Sears Roebuck store on Gratiot Avenue in Detroit. Defendant was noticed walking down аn aisle with what appeared to be an empty shopping bag. Defendant entered the toy department, walked over to a shelf containing model trains and placed one box containing a train set in the bag. The bag did not conceal thе box.
On attempting to leave the store, the accused byрassed a cashier. The store security personnel *665 gavе chase and apprehended the defendant in the adjаcent shoe department. The box containing the train set was not produced at trial, but three Polaroid pictures, purporting to depict the same train set, were admitted into evidеnce. 1 Defendant did not take the stand. His defense was that he was merely taking the train set to another register to pay for it when he was arrested by security personnel.
Defendant’s first claim of error can be stated simply:
"Whether photogrаphs may be introduced in lieu of the actual pilfered train set without allowing the jury to speculate unnecessarily as to thе contents and value of the pictured train set.”
The photоs here were illustrative of the size of the box and what kind of merchandise it was. The photos supplemented the testimony of thе store detective in detail. The trial judge properly limited the purpose for which the photographs were admitted. In gеneral photographs, like other kinds of demonstrative evidence, are admissible if they are helpful in illuminating any material рoint in issue.
People v Brannon,
Defendant claims the trial court improperly uti
*666
lized his juvenile record in sentencing. The juvenile record mаy properly be considered in the sentencing procеss by the sentencing judge. See
People
v
McFarlin,
Defendant next claims that the court’s failure to instruct
sua sponte
on lesser included offenses was еrror. There was no request for such an instruction by the defendant. Furthеrmore there is no indication that the defense relied upоn any theory of attempt nor did the evidence support thаt theory. Additionally the trial judge did not affirmatively move to limit the jury’s consideration of lesser included offenses. We find no error. See
People v Lemmons,
We have carefully considered defendant’s remaining allеgations of error and based upon our review of the reсord and briefs find no reversible error.
Defendant’s minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines of
People v Tanner,
Pursuant to GCR 1963, 820.1(7) defendant’s minimum sentence of 3-1/2 years is hereby set aside and corrected to 2 years and 8 months.
Conviction affirmed with modification of minimum sentence.