People v. Shaw, 9
Citation | 381 Mich. 467,164 N.W.2d 7 |
Decision Date | 03 February 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 9,9 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Herschel M. SHAW, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Donald A. Kuebler, Asst. Pros. Atty., Robert F. Leonard, Pros. Atty., Genesee County, Flint, for plaintiff-appellee.
Brownell, Gault & Andrews, by Douglas M. Philpott, Flint, for defendant-appellant.
Before the Entire Bench.
LeRoy Smith, Clayton Wright and defendant Herschel M. Shaw were jointly charged with breaking and entering in the nighttime. The offense was alleged to have occurred May 15, 1963. On June 12, 1963, defendant was afforded court-appointed counsel. On October 14, 1963, codefendant Wright entered a plea of guilty to the charge.
On October 15, 1963, at 4:30 o'clock p.m. the case against defendant and LeRoy Smith was begun. Defendant's court-appointed attorney appeared on his behalf. A jury was drawn and sworn. Court then recessed until the following day.
On October 16, 1963, upon the reconvening of court, Ollie B. Bivins, attorney for the defendant, addressed the court. The following took place:
(Thereupon the Jury retired from the Court Room).
'THE COURT (interposing): What do you say, Mr. Prosecutor?
The people's case was presented. No witnesses were produced for the defendants. The jury was charged, retired at 2:20 o'clock p.m. and returned at 2:45 o'clock p.m. with a verdict of guilty.
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the objection to the way defendant Shaw was clothed was not timely made and that the error complained 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. 383):
.'
In Eaddy v. People (1946), 115 Colo. 488, 174 P.2d 717, it is stated (p. 491, 174 P.2d p. 718):
The opinion states (p. 490, 174 P.2d p. 718):
The defendant was granted a new trial.
In the case of Shultz v. State (1938), 131 Fla. 757, 179 So. 764, the opinion is expressed that to be clothed as a convict when one has not been convicted is highly improper and that it might well be grounds for a reversal. In that case, reversal was based upon other grounds.
In the case of Brooks v. Texas (1967) (C.A. 5), 381 F.2d 619, the defendant was brought to trial handcuffed and in his jail uniform. The Court said (p. 624):
In Brooks, the Court held that the defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel primarily because of counsel's failure to prepare properly for trial and to afford the defendant the defense of insanity which was the only available defense. The judgment of the District Court was reversed with directions to grant the writ of habeas corpus unless the state of Texas elected within a reasonable time to again try defendant.
As supporting the proposition that a court may exercise discretion as to the criminal defendant's attire, the Court of Appeals cited People v. Thomas (1965), 1 Mich.App. 118, 134 N.W.2d 352. In that case the defendant was brought into court in prison uniform and in chains. This was done as a precautionary measure to prevent another escape by the defendant who had once escaped from prison. In People v. Henley (1965), 2 Mich.App. 54, 57, 58, 138 N.W.2d 505, also noted by the Court of Appeals, the trial judge was obliged to have the defendant forcefully clothed and brought into the court room shackled to a chair because he could not be controlled in any other way. We do not think the action taken in those cases by the trial court has any application to the facts of this case.
Under ordinary circumstances, a court has no discretion as to a criminal defendant's attire. The rule of law is stated in 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, p. 275, § 239, as follows:
In the present case the issue as to how the defendant was garbed was never raised by his attorney until after the jury was chosen and the jury had twice had an opportunity to see defendant in prison garb. While defendant's attorney moved for a mistrial, he made no attempt to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Estelle v. Williams
...Commonwealth v. Keeler, 216 Pa.Super. 193, 264 A.2d 407 (1970); Miller v. State, 249 Ark. 3, 457 S.W.2d 848 (1970); People v. Shaw, 381 Mich. 467, 164 N.W.2d 7 (1969); People v. Zapata, 220 Cal.App.2d 903, 34 Cal.Rptr. 171 (1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 406, 84 S.Ct. 1633, 12 L.Ed.2d 495 (1......
-
U.S. v. Carter
...1971), cert. denied 404 U.S. 897, 92 S.Ct. 201, 30 L.Ed.2d 174 (1971); Brooks v. Texas, 381 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1967); People v. Shaw, 381 Mich. 467, 164 N.W.2d 7 (1969); People v. Zapata, 220 Cal.App.2d 903, 34 Cal.Rptr. 171 (1963), cert. denied 377 U.S. 406, 84 S.Ct. 1633, 12 L.Ed.2d 495 (......
-
Williams v. Estelle
...Commonwealth v. Keeler, 216 Pa.Super. 193, 264 A.2d 407 (1970); Miller v. State, 249 Ark. 3, 457 S.W.2d 848 (1970); People v. Shaw, 381 Mich. 467, 164 N.W.2d 7 (1969); People v. Zapata, 220 Cal.App.2d 903, 34 Cal.Rptr. 171 (1963); Eaddy v. People, 115 Colo. 488, 174 P.2d 717 (1946); Collins......
-
McFarland v. English
...Commonwealth v. Keeler, 216 Pa.Super. 193, 264 A.2d 407 (1970); Miller v. State, 249 Ark. 3, 457 S.W.2d 848 (1970); People v. Shaw, 381 Mich. 467, 164 N.W.2d 7 (1969); People v. Zapata, 220 Cal.App.2d 903, 34 Cal.Rptr. 171 (1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 406, 84 S.Ct. 1633, 12 L.Ed.2d 495 (1......