People v. Alexander
| Decision Date | 28 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 5519,5600,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 169 N.W.2d 652,17 Mich.App. 497 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felton ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Lee WORTHY, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Charles T. Burke, Detroit, for Alexander, Jack J. Kraizman, Detroit, for Worthy, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Wayne County, Patricia J. Pernick, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before McGREGOR, P.J., FITZGERALD and CYNAR, * JJ.
Defendants were convicted by a jury in the recorder's court of the city of Detroit of breaking an entering. 1 Defendants presented no evidence and appeal their convictions.
The prosecutor, in his final argument, stated that, 'This testimony (by 3 witnesses for the prosecution), members of the jury, stands uncontradicted from this witness stand.' No objections were made by defendants, but they both allege on appeal that this statement violated their privilege against self-incrimination. C.L.S.1961, § 600.2159 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 27A.2159.) We generally do not hear issues on appeal that were unobjected to at the trial. People v. Perkins (1968), 11 Mich.App. 170, 160 N.W.2d 751; Gonzalez v. Hoffman (1968), 9 Mich.App. 522, 157 N.W.2d 475. In addition, language almost identical to this has been held not to be prejudicial as not referring to the accused personally. People v. Lowrey (1922), 217 Mich. 431, 186 N.W. 396. It is reversible error to specifically refer to the failure of a defendant to take the stand. People v. Payne (1902), 131 Mich. 474, 91 N.W. 739. Such is not the case here.
Failure to object also shall bar any consideration of the alleged omission of the trial court to give instructions that the jury was not to infer guilt from the failure of defendants to testify or from the reference of the prosecutor to that point. Defendants also did not request jury instructions on that issue and cannot complain on appeal.
In sentencing Alexander, the court relied on a presentence report prepared 2 months previously for another judge. In sentencing Worthy, the court relied on a 1961 probation report. No objection was made by defendants to the fact that they were not up-to-date reports. We find no violation of C.L.1948, § 771.14 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.1144). The power to impose sentence is discretionary with the court (C.L.1948, § 769.1 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.1072)) and is not mandatorily affected by this statute which only requires the probation officer to prepare a presentence report. It need not be up-to-date and, in addition, the defendants were given ample opportunities to object.
An additional issue is presented in the appeal of defendant Worthy. His court-appointed counsel did not request a preliminary examination. At the outset of the trial, defendant Worthy asked for the examination, stating that he had never waived it. The court refused his request. The following colloquy took place:
'Mr. Worthy: I haven't had the rights of trial, as far as my rights and things. You are forcing me into trial. I still don't know what you are doing to me.
'The Court: Well, we will have the trial. * * *
'Mr. Worthy: I'm not prepared for trial.
'The Court: Just sit down. We will bring in the Jury Panel--
'Mr. Worthy: Can I pick my jury?
'The Court: You sure can. You got a lawyer. You are going to work through your lawyer, * * *.
'Mr. Worthy: I don't have an attorney either. I'm not going to work with him. * * *
'The Court: Draw a jury.
The trial proceeded with counsel representing the defendant. He now alleges that he wished to discharge his attorney and proceed In propria persona, and that the trial court erred in not permitting him to do so. This Court held in People v. Henley (1965), 2 Mich.App. 54, 138 N.W.2d 505, that an accused may discharge his attorney and defend himself. C.L.1948, § 763.1 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.854). The quality of counsel proffered is not relevant here. Current concern with the guarantees of counsel to defendants as exemplified by Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, does not oblige on charged with a crime to have a lawyer. Under the particular facts of this case, we find that defendant Worthy should have been permitted to discharge his attorney and proceed alone, having clearly indicated his desires and displeasures. It is not necessary that a defendant untrained in legal matters precisely use words such as 'I don't want this man for my lawyer', and 'I want to be able to act as my own attorney' (United States ex rel. Maldonado v. Denno (CA 2, 1965), 348 F.2d 12). If it can be reasonably inferred that he has manifested this desire, then the court should ask him whether or not he intends to, or not to, discharge his attorney, and who will now conduct the defense. Denno, supra. This is not a case where a defendant refused to accept appointed counsel and states on appeal that he wanted other counsel where ample notice and opportunity was had for him to obtain that other counsel. United States v. Jones (CA 7, 1966), 369 F.2d 217.
The trial had not yet begun and no prejudice would result to the people, nor disruption to the trial court, if the defendant was permitted to proceed In propria persona at this time. Denno, supra. The possibilities of prejudice to a defendant who could not discharge his appointed counsel at the outset of the trial are apparent and could clearly result in a denial of his right to a fair trial by due process of the law. Const.1963, art. 1, § 13.
Affirmed as to defendant Alexander. Reversed and remanded for a new trial as to defendant Worthy in which defendant may represent himself In propria persona.
The language quoted in the majority opinion herein...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Holcomb, Docket No. 12719
...1009 (E.D.Tenn., 1966), aff'd, 365 F.2d 251 (CA 6, 1966).2 M.C.L.A. § 763.1; M.S.A. § 28.854.3 See, also, People v. Alexander, 184 N.W.2d 292, 17 Mich.App. 497, 169 N.W.2d 652 (1969); People v. Pruitt, 28 Mich.App. 270 (1970); People v. Armstrong, 28 Mich.App. 387, 184 N.W.2d 531 (1970); Pe......
-
Jerskey v. State
...by comment which directs the jury's attention to the fact that the defendant did not take the wtness stand. People v. Alexander, 17 Mich.App. 497, 169 N.W.2d 652 (1969); State v. Dent, 51 N.J. 428, 241 A.2d 833 Recent Authority Late cases throughout the country are supportive of our positio......
-
People v. Perry
...132 Mich. 422, 429, 93 N.W. 1084 (1903); People v. Martin, 44 Mich.App. 254, 257, 205 N.W.2d 96 (1972); People v. Alexander, 17 Mich.App. 497, 499-500, 169 N.W.2d 652 (1969); People v. Hider, 12 Mich.App. 526, 529-530, 163 N.W.2d 273 (1968). See also United States v. El-Zoubi, 993 F.2d 442,......
-
Raper v. Mintzes
...review absent a demonstration of manifest injustice. People v. Duncan, 402 Mich. 1, 16, 260 N.W.2d 58 (1977); People v. Alexander, 17 Mich.App. 497, 499-500, 169 N.W.2d 652 (1969). The only procedural default asserted on appeal before this court is the lack of a contemporaneous objection.2 ......