137 N.W.2d 304 (Mich.App. 1965), 81, People v. Hoffman

Docket Nº:Cal. No. 81.
Citation:137 N.W.2d 304, 1 Mich.App. 557
Opinion Judge:Before GILLIS, P J, and T G KAVANAGH and QUINN
Party Name:PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee. v. Charles F. HOFFMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:[1 Mich.App. 558] R. William Reid, Lansing, for appellant. Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Donald L. Reisig, Pros. Atty., Ingham County, Leo A. Farhat, Special Asst. Pros. Atty., Lansing, for appellee.
Judge Panel:Before GILLIS, P.J., and T. G. KAVANAGH and QUINN, JJ.
Case Date:October 18, 1965
Court:Court of Appeals of Michigan

Page 304

137 N.W.2d 304 (Mich.App. 1965)

1 Mich.App. 557

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee.

v.

Charles F. HOFFMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Cal. No. 81.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

October 18, 1965

Page 305

[1 Mich.App. 558] R. William Reid, Lansing, for appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Donald L. Reisig, Pros. Atty., Ingham County, Leo A. Farhat, Special Asst. Pros. Atty., Lansing, for appellee.

Before GILLIS, P.J., and T. G. KAVANAGH and QUINN, JJ.

T. G. KAVANAGH, Judge.

On November 9, 1963, the defendant, Charles F. Hoffman, shot and killed Marion Leo Bodo. Charged with first degree murder, he pleaded self defense, and the jury returned a verdict of second degree murder. Defendant appeals, making five assignments or error:

First defendant claims it was error for the prosecutor to ask defendant on cross examination if he was presently under arrest for additional offenses.

The defendant admits that under the statute prior conviction of a crime may be shown to test the credibility of a witness, C.L.S.1961 § 600.2158 (Stat.Ann.1962[1 Mich.App. 559] Rev. § 27 A.2158) but claims arrests without convictions may not be so shown. However, the Supreme Court in the case of People v. Foley (1941), 299 Mich. 358, 300 N.W. 119 specifically allowed, on cross-examination, a showing of previous arrests in order to attack the credibility of the defendant testifying. In the case at bar, Hoffman was questioned on cross-examination about his previous arrests. In Foley, supra, the trial judge instructed the jury that the only purpose for which they could consider the evidence was to test the credibility of the defendant as a witness and that the prior arrests had nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the defendant in the present case. The trial judge here instructed the jury in substantially the same manner. Foley allows the examination in the sound discretion of the trial judge. The first question raised by defendant is without merit.

Next defendant says it was error to fail to provide defendant with counsel when first arrested November 20, 1963.

The defendant maintains that his constitutional rights were violated because 1) he was interrogated from November 20th to November 29th about Bodo while under arrest on another charge and 2) that counsel was not present while he was...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP