On March 28, 1944, defendant Schwitzke was convicted and sentenced in the St. Clair county circuit court for the crime of assault with the intent to commit rape. It will serve no purpose to rеcite the facts leading up to the arrest. As is-often true in this tyрe of case, the testimony was highly conflicting and there was little or no testimony corroborating that of the peоple’s principal witness or the testimony of defendant whо took the stand in his own behalf. It is not claimed that the testimony did not present an issue of fact as to defendant’s guilt. Instead this appeal by defendant is based solely on alleged error of the trial judge by including the following in his charge to the jury:
“Before sending you to the jury room to consider this case, there is a final instruction as to your duty you should have constantly in mind. This instructiоn does not in any way indicate the personal opinion of the court, nor should you consider it as being more favоrable to one side than to the other. The safety of сommunities, which the law is designed to secure, can only be realized by its faithful execution.- There is an imperative neсessity for the prompt arrest of persons accusеd and a thorough and impartial trial to ascertain their guilt'or Innocence.- Enforcement of criminal laws in a manner most conducive to the public welfare depends in а very important sense on the fidelity, intelligence and moral courage of the jurors on whom devolves the duty of deсiding upon testimony the truth of every criminal accusation. If thrоugh want of judgment, or by failing to appreciate the relation of their duties to the general good, or if through extreme sensibility in view of the possible consequences of a conviction to the prisoner they acquit the guilty, the laws against crime are thereby in a measure suspended. Such mistakes would be an evil example to the whole class-of men inclined to crime.”
*184 While it is true that the philosophy contained in the above, although correct,- might under some circumstances be misinterpreted by a jury and thereby become prejudicial, yet any such misunderstanding would be, and in the instant cаse was, obviated by the immediately following portion of thе charge which was:
‘ ‘ On the other hand, if through inattention to the tеstimony, or by a more or less precipitant judgment a jury pronounces an innocent man guilty, the wrong is no less serious. Therе is, therefore, no escape from a grave responsibility.”
This Court has repeatedly stated that a charge to a jury must be considered in its entirety in determining whether or not it is prejudicial to a defendant, and that a new trial will not be granted where a jury could not have been misled by the charge as a whole.
“Where the charge of the judge to which exception is taken is not strictly correct, but the court can clearly see that the jury could not have been misled by it, tо the injury of the party excepting, a new trial will not be granted for that error.” People v. Scott (syllabus),6 Mich. 287 .
See, also,
People
v.
Marble,
The conviction and sentence are affirmed.