People v. Shaw, Docket No. 2224
Citation | 7 Mich.App. 187,151 N.W.2d 381 |
Decision Date | 27 June 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 2224,2 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Herschel M. SHAW, Defendant and Appellant |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Douglas M. Philpott, Flint, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Robert F. Leonard, Pros. Atty. Genesee County, Flint, for appellee.
Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and FITZGERALD and GILLIS, JJ.
Defendant, Herschel Shaw, participated with 2 others in stealing a television set and 2 stereo record players from a Flint business establishment during the evening of May 15, 1963. He was subsequently convicted by jury of the crime of breaking and entering in the nighttime 1 and sentenced to a term of 5 to 15 years at the State Prison of Southern Michigan at Jackson.
The pertinent facts to this review are as follows: Defendant Shaw's trial began with the impaneling of a jury in the late afternoon of October 15, 1963. He attended this selection of a jury with codefendant Smith, codefendant Wright having previously entered a plea of guilty. Both Shaw and Smith were dressed in striped, county jail uniforms, however, no objection as to their appearance was raised by defense counsel that afternoon.
The following morning Shaw and Smith appeared for trial, again wearing the striped, county jail uniforms. After the jury entered the courtroom but before the prosecution's opening statement was made, defendant Shaw's counsel asked the court to excuse the jury. When the jury had retired, he made a motion for a mistrial claiming prejudicial denial of a fair and impartial trial. Defense counsel stated in part:
The prosecutor called the trial court's attention to the fact that no objection to the attire of defendants had been made the previous afternoon and that he personally did not believe the jury would be prejudiced. Defense counsel then stated:
The motion for a mistrial was denied, the trial court indicating that defense counsel had known for some time that the case had been set for trial and could have arranged for defendants to appear clothed as he thought proper. Further, the court indicated the lateness of the motion. The trial then proceeded terminating in the convictions of Shaw and Smith. Only defendant Shaw has appealed.
The sole question for review is whether there was a denial of defendant Shaw's right to a fair and impartial trial when he appeared for jury selection and trial attired in a striped, county jail uniform.
In the absence of any Michigan cases directly in point, defendant urges this Court to adopt the rule of law found in 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 239, pp. 275, 276.
'Trial of defendant in prison garb.
(Footnotes omitted)
Eaddy v. People (1946), 115 Colo. 488, 174 P.2d 717, one of 3 cases cited in support of the above rule of law, involved the trial of a Negro solider wearing a United States Army uniform at the time of arrest but wearing striped overalls with the words 'county jail' on them at trial. The Colorado Supreme Court found prejudicial error where objection was made and a request for the trial court yo direct the proper officer to return defendant to the courtroom properly attired was overruled. It appears that the objection and request were made immediately upon defendants being brought into court. Notwithstanding the fact that it lacked precedent that court stated as follows:
On appeal, the defendant in People v. Thomas (1965), 1 Mich.App. 118, 134 N.W.2d 352, raised in issue whether his appearance in court in prison uniform and in chains prejudiced the jury. We admitted there that it would have been better had he been brought into court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Shaw, 9
...of was not so gross as to have deprived defendant of a fair trial so that his conviction was a miscarriage of justice. 7 Mich.App. 187, 151 N.W.2d 381. The Court of Appeals stated, referring to the trial court (p. 192, 151 N.W.2d p. 'That a court his discretion as to the criminal defendant'......
-
Carroll v. State
...to see him in prison or jail clothing. Xanthull v. Beto, supra; Williams v. Beto, 364 F.Supp. 335 (S.D.Tex.1973); People v. Shaw, 7 Mich.App. 187, 151 N.W.2d 381 (1967); Lenhart v. State, 503 P.2d 918 (Okl.Crim.App.1972); Atkins v. State, 210 So.2d 9, 10, 11 (Fla.App.1968). Where no prejudi......
-
People v. Porter, Docket No. 54660
...428] voir dire. Other Michigan decisions have dealt with untimely objections to being tried in prison clothing. People v. Shaw, 7 Mich.App. 187, 151 N.W.2d 381 (1967), aff'd 381 Mich. 467, 164 N.W.2d 7 (1969); and People v. Harris, 80 Mich.App. 228, 263 N.W.2d 40 (1977), lv. den. 406 Mich. ......
-
State v. Hendrick
...reversal in the instant case. One of the most recent decisions we have been able to find on this issue is that of People v. Shaw, 7 Mich.App. 187, 151 N.W.2d 381 (1967). In that case the Michigan court was urged, as we are urged, to adopt the rule of law stated in 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law ......