People v. Bailey
Decision Date | 11 August 1988 |
Docket Number | Docket Nos. 99723,99724 |
Citation | 426 N.W.2d 755,169 Mich.App. 492 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Lloyd BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant. 169 Mich.App. 492, 426 N.W.2d 755 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[169 MICHAPP 493] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. [169 MICHAPP 494] Caruso, Sol. Gen., Thomas A. Hallin, Pros. Atty., and David Batdorf-Barnes, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Ronald E. Kaplovitz, Pontiac, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
Before BEASLEY, P.J., and HOOD and TAHVONEN, * JJ.
Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of kidnapping, M.C.L. Sec. 750.349; M.S.A. Sec. 28.581, and first-degree murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.316; M.S.A. Sec. 28.548. Defendant was sentenced to sixty-five to one hundred years imprisonment on the kidnapping charge and mandatory life imprisonment on the murder charge. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.
The charges in this case arise from the kidnapping and murder of thirteen-year-old Shawn Moore in the late summer of 1985. At trial, defendant admitted killing the boy, but claimed he was insane at the time.
On appeal, defendant first claims that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial request for a change in venue from Livingston County. At the hearing on the motion, defense counsel played a videotape for the court which exemplified the type of coverage the local television stations were giving the case on their newscasts. Posters and newspaper articles from the local papers were also entered as exhibits. The community had offered a $50,000 reward for the safe return of Shawn Moore. The community had also distributed a leaflet which was captioned: [169 MICHAPP 495] Defense counsel argued that Livingston County was a small community that had become actively involved in defendant's prosecution. Therefore it would be impossible for defendant to get a fair trial in the venue.
The prosecution countered that, while there had been extensive pretrial publicity, it had not prejudiced the community against defendant. He urged the court to defer its decision on change of venue until after jury selection. The court took judicial notice of the fact that there had been extensive media coverage of the instant case. However, the court stated its confidence that it would be possible to empanel an impartial jury. The court therefore denied defendant's motion for an immediate change of venue and invited defense counsel to renew the motion if its attempts to empanel a fair jury were unsuccessful.
In People v. Jancar, 140 Mich.App. 222, 229-230, 363 N.W.2d 455 (1985), this Court set forth the law on change of venue:
Although a defendant's failure to utilize all of his peremptory challenges will not per se preclude him from assigning error on appeal, it is a factor to be considered in showing that the jury was satisfactory when finally empaneled. People v. Haggart, 142 Mich.App. 330, 336, 370 N.W.2d 345 (1985), lv. den. 426 Mich. 876 (1986).
In the instant case, while there was widespread publicity, it appears that through careful and considered effort an impartial jury was selected. The jury selection process took five days, and the trial court and counsel took a considerable amount of time and energy to seat the jury. Each prospective juror was asked if he or she had been exposed to the media coverage of the case. The jurors were also asked if they had formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of defendant. The court inquired of each juror whether he or she could remain fair and impartial. Each prospective juror was asked if he or she would agree not to discuss the case with anyone. In addition, the jurors were told not to watch television, listen to the radio, or to read any newspaper article about the case, and to base his or her verdict only on the evidence admitted in the courtroom. Defense counsel expressed satisfaction with the jury without using all of his peremptory challenges.
On the basis of the record, it does not appear that the court abused its discretion by denying defendant's motion for change of venue. As is permissible, the court delayed ruling on defendant's[169 MICHAPP 497] motion until after the jury selection process. Having personally questioned the prospective jurors, the court was able to determine whether there was a feeling of prejudice in the community directed toward defendant. The court stated that it found "an ability and willingness to afford the defendant ... all the protections of the law." Thus, we feel the court did not err. See People v. Hart, 161 Mich.App. 630, 411 N.W.2d 803 (1987).
Next, defendant claims the trial court erred in failing to declare Dr. Jose Tombo a material witness and to fully assist in securing his testimony for trial. Before trial, defendant filed a motion in district court to have Dr. Tombo declared to be a material witness and to require a bond to secure his presence at trial. Counsel argued that Dr. Tombo was a material witness because he had treated defendant for three years and alleged irregularities in the treatment had a profound impact on defendant's state of mind. Defense counsel argued that there was a suspicion Dr. Tombo might flee because he was a former resident of the Philippines and still had a valid passport, had been suspended from his job, and had been the focus of widespread media attention. In response, counsel for Dr. Tombo stated that Dr. Tombo had lived in the same apartment for twelve years, was fighting for reinstatement of his job, had a substantial property interest in his state retirement fund, and had previously met voluntarily with defense counsel in defense counsel's office.
The court stated it was not convinced that Dr. Tombo was a material witness, but that he would consider Dr. Tombo to be a material witness for purposes of defendant's motion. Nevertheless, the court did not believe that there was a danger of loss of Dr. Tombo's testimony unless he furnished bail. The court invited defense counsel to raise this [169 MICHAPP 498] motion again should facts in the future indicate that Dr. Tombo would not show up at trial.
When trial commenced, Dr. Tombo did not appear. Therefore, defense counsel brought a motion for a stay of proceedings due to his inability to locate Dr. Tombo. Defense counsel argued that Dr. Tombo was a crucial witness because he had told defendant's father, in a phone call prior to the trial, that he could help defendant's insanity defense.
The prosecution outlined its extensive efforts to locate Dr. Tombo prior to trial. The prosecution argued that the defense had not shown the materiality of Dr. Tombo's proposed testimony and also that all possible efforts to locate him had been made.
The court denied defendant's motion, ruling that Dr. Tombo was not a material witness, that a stay of proceedings would not be helpful in producing Dr. Tombo for trial, and that the loss of Dr. Tombo's testimony was, in part, defense counsel's fault because defense counsel had not deposed Dr. Tombo when they had a chance. The court ruled that defendant had not exercised due diligence to secure Dr. Tombo's testimony.
M.C.L. Sec. 767.35; M.S.A. Sec. 28.975 states:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Blue Thunder
...use of all but one peremptory challenge is sufficient to permit review. For support, he cites us to People v. Bailey, 169 Mich.App. 492, 495-496, 426 N.W.2d 755, 757 (1988), for that proposition. Bailey, however, deals with the effect of jury challenges on a decision for change of venue. Ra......
-
Carr v. State
...relating to Massey's death was ever the subject of media publicity or the object of community attention. Compare People v. Bailey, 169 Mich.App. 492, 426 N.W.2d 755, 756 (1988) (distribution of leaflets in small community stating that accused, who was facing trial for kidnapping/murder of 1......
-
In re Spears
...is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbedon appeal absent an abuse of discretion." People v. Bailey, 169 Mich.App. 492, 500, 426 N.W.2d 755 (1988). We conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion in ruling that respondent could inform potential jurors re......
-
Riem v. Howe (In re Estate of Howe)
... ... rule indicates that referral is mandatory upon a party's ... request. See also People v Gauntlett , 134 Mich.App ... 737, 757; 352 N.W.2d 310 (1984), mod 419 Mich. 909 (1984) ... (construing "shall refer" in the ... Mathis v Auto Owners Ins , 339 ... Mich.App. 471, 480; 983 N.W.2d 447, 452 (2021), citing ... People v Bailey , 169 Mich.App. 492, 499; 426 N.W.2d ... 755 (1988) ... 2 ... LAW AND ANALYSIS ... ...