People v. Anderson
Decision Date | 12 April 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 3,No. 117,117,3 |
Citation | 2 Mich.App. 718,141 N.W.2d 353 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Ivan ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant. Cal |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Hartwig, Crow & Jones, by F. A. Jones, Benton Harbor, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, John T. Hammond, Pros. Atty., Berrien County, St. Joseph, for appellee.
Before WATTS, P.J., and FITZGERALD and HOLBROOK, JJ.
Defendant James Ivan Anderson was convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to 3 years probation and a fine. Motion to set aside conviction and request for a new trial was denied, and defendant appeals. The case was transferred to the Court of Appeals on October 14, 1964.
Defendant was convicted under C.L.S.1961, § 750.520 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.788) of rape upon a 13-year old girl. She testified at the examination before a municipal judge that she had sexual intercourse with the defendant in Berrien county on the day alleged in the complaint. The examining judge found probable cause of the offense having been committed by the defendant on June 8, 1964, and held the defendant or trial before the circuit court.
In the circuit court trial, the complainant testified that the defendant did not have sexual intercourse with her on June 8, 1964. The assistant prosecuting attorney questioned the complainant in detail relative to the testimony she gave at the examination. The complaining witness testified that she did not tell the truth at the examination and repeated her testimony that she did not have sexual intercourse with the defendant on June 8, 1964.
The defendant in the circuit court trial denied that he had sexual intercourse with the complainant on the alleged date.
The court instructed the jury in part as follows:
The Court:
Under the instructions of the court, the jury was permitted to convict the defendant upon the testimony of the complainant taken before the examining judge. At the trial, the only two witnesses to the alleged offense both denied emphatically that the complainant had sexual intercourse with the defendant on the alleged date.
The issue involved in the instant case is: Did the trial court err in refusing to grant a motion for directed verdict of acquittal where there was no evidence offered that defendant had sexual intercourse on the date charged in the complaint for statutory rape and the only testimony of defendant's guilt was the testimony of the complaining witness given at the preliminary hearing, the truth of which she denied when asked at the trial if she recalled her previous testimony?
Justice GRANT, writing the opinion of the Court in People v. Miner (1904), 138 Mich. 290, 292, 101 N.W. 536, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. White, 1
...his testimony. Under our prior cases the inconsistent statements are admissible only for impeachment purposes. People v. Anderson, 2 Mich.App. 718, 141 N.W.2d 353 (1966); People v. Miner, 138 Mich. 290, 101 N.W. 536 (1904). IV Appellant's trial counsel indicated in opening remarks to the ju......
-
People v. Dozier, Docket No. 6597
...v. Eagger (1966), 4 Mich.App. 449, 145 N.W.2d 221; People v. Rodgers (1969), 18 Mich.App. 37, 170 N.W.2d 493; People v. Anderson (1966), 2 Mich.App. 718, 141 N.W.2d 353. However, where it has, the prior, inconsistent statements have been the only direct evidence of guilt, the other evidence......
- People v. Leach, 807