People v. Sullivan
| Citation | 18 Mich.App. 1,170 N.W.2d 514 |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 4193,1 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Theodore SULLIVAN, alias James Suttles, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Edward P. Echlin, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.
Before McGREGOR, P.J., and FITZGERALD and CYNAR, JJ. *
The defendant was arraigned on the complaint and warrant by Recorder's Court Judge David I. Kaufman. The arraignment was conducted on December 16, 1966, at Detroit General Hospital where the defendant was being held while recovering from gunshot wounds sustained at the scene of the crime. On January 25 1967, a request was made to have the Court appoint counsel, and an attorney was appointed on the same day to represent the defendant. An examination was held on February 8, 1967, the record reflects defendant was represented by counsel and at the time the case was called both the prosecutor and the defendant's counsel stated they were ready for their respective sides. The prosecution submitted testimony and moved that the defendant be bound over for trial, the defense having no opposition to the motion. Thereafter, a motion to quash the information and to discharge the defendant was made and heard by the Court. The motion to quash was based on the following grounds:
(1) That while the defendant was arrested on December 13, 1966, he was not arraigned before a magistrate until December 16, 1966;
(2) That during the period of time and at the time of his arraignment, he was not represented by counsel;
(3) That his arraignment took place at a time when the defendant wounded by gunfire and in great pain was a police prisoner at the Detroit General Hospital and, although before such arraignment requested that he be permitted to first seek the advice of counsel, the Court denied his request;
(4) That from December 13, 1966, until December 28, 1966, and prior to and until after his arraignment, he was held in custody by the police during all of which time he was denied the right to make a telephone call or to have one made for him or permitted to have visitors or prevented from seeking the advice of counsel, friend or relative;
(5) That by reason whereof he was denied his rights under Article VI and Article XIV of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.
The motion to quash was denied.
At the trial, the proofs indicated the following:
On December 13, 1966, at about 11:00 p.m., Helen Hall, an owner of a party store in the City of Detroit, was filling a beer cooler when two men walked into the store. John Sullivan, who was one of the men, had a gun; and he said to her, 'This is a stick-up,' and 'Who else is in the store with you?'. While she replied no one was in the back, she knew John Croce was in the back part of the party store with a rifle. She had hired Croce who stayed in back with a gun because of previous trouble in the party store. While the prosecution was questioning this witness on direct examination, defense counsel objected to that portion of the answer relating to the reason why John Croce was in the back of the party store. The objection was on the basis that the witness made a voluntary statement relating to other crimes. A motion for a mistrial followed the objection. The Court denied the motion for mistrial, stating the witness merely explained why she had someone in the back of the store, and it had nothing to do with the defendant. As the defendant marched her to the back of the store, John Croce came from the back and fired a shot and she felt the man fall against her. She went down to the floor and as she did so, she heard the clicks of a gun behind her. While Sullivan had a gun in her back, the other man went to the register and took money out of it. The other man ran out of the store when the shots were fired. There had been no customer in the store for about five minutes before the entrance into the store by Sullivan and the other man.
John William Croce stated that at the time and date stated he was working part-time in the party store as a guard. He did not see the men come in. He looked through the beer cases and saw a man holding Mrs. Hall. He grabbed his rifle, came out, and from five feet fired at the man, and thereupon, Mrs. Hall and the man holding her dropped to the floor. The man let Mrs. Hall go, pointed the gun at Croce and pulled the trigger twice; but both times the gun missed fire. Thereupon, Croce fired again and hit Sullivan in the neck and fired three other shots at the man who had been at the register.
Darwin Anstiss, a police officer for the City of Detroit, while on duty, received a radio call on a hold-up, proceeded to the party store and on arrival found the defendant in a sitting position against the beer cooler with a gun near him. The gun contained five cartridges; two cartridges had indentations from being fired, indicating the trigger had been pulled but the bullets did not explode. He examined the defendant and at first thought the defendant was dead. He saw that the defendant had a hole in his neck. The defendant was taken to the hospital.
Defendant Sullivan testified he walked alone into the party store to get some cigarettes. At the time he walked in, he saw no other man enter the store and did not see any man go to the cash register. As he walked into the store, he dropped a coin on the floor, bent down to pick it up and was shot. The man who shot him stood over him; and, as he picked himself up to ask why he was shot, he was shot a second time. He was unconscious while entering the hospital and was in the hospital for thirty-four days. He denies having a gun or being involved in a hold-up. On cross-examination, the prosecution asked a question regarding his arrest for and conviction of any felony. The defense made an objection, and the Court overruled the objection, ruling that the answer would be received for purposes of credibility. The defendant answered that he had been previously arrested and convicted of a felony. In the instruction, the Court clearly charged the jury as to what weight and credibility was to attach to the defendant's testimony regarding his previous convictions.
The defense...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Trudeau
...therefore lost no crucial rights from the judge's act. People v. Griffin, 33 Mich.App. 474, 190 N.W.2d 266 (1971); People v. Sullivan, 18 Mich.App. 1, 170 N.W.2d 514 (1969). Next, defendant argues that overruling objections to certain allegedly leading questions asked of the key witness, re......
-
People v. Williams
...affected him adversely. City of Detroit v. Wilson, 19 Mich.App. 595, 598, 173 N.W.2d 252 (1969). The case of People v. Sullivan, 18 Mich.App. 1, 7--8, 170 N.W.2d 514, (1969), controls the question of possible prejudice concerning use of the 'Restricting a person's right to communicate with ......
-
People v. Wilson, Docket No. 3868
...or other prejudicial evidence was received which would affect defendant adversely while he was without counsel. People v. Sullivan (1969), 18 Mich.App. 1, 170 N.W.2d 514. The witness's testimony, in addition to the possibility of 'ogling', indicated improper and suggestive speech, annoyance......
-
People v. Griffin
...herein rendered the proceeding critical, I.e., defendant did not enter a plea or otherwise make any statement. People v. Sullivan (1969), 18 Mich.App. 1, 170 N.W.2d 514. Similarly, according to the jurisprudence of this state, incarceration and the taking of clothing for purposes of investi......