People v. Behm
| Decision Date | 27 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 13294,13395,13394,No. 2,13331 and 13292,2 |
| Citation | 45 Mich.App. 614,207 N.W.2d 200 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Kent BEHM et al., Defendants-Appellants |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender, Detroit, for Whitehead, Behm and Patterson.
Frank N. MacLean, Detroit, for Culpepper; Charles Burke, Detroit, of counsel.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Walter W. Turton, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before McGREGOR, P.J., and QUINN and PETERSON, * JJ.
By jury verdict, all defendants were convicted of kidnapping, M.C.L.A. § 750.349; M.S.A. § 28.581. The same jury also found defendants Behm and Culpepper guilty of armed robbery, M.C.L.A. § 750.529; M.S.A. § 28.797. All were sentenced and all appeal. Defendants Behm, Patterson and Whitehead are represented by one counsel. Defendant Culpepper has separate counsel.
Claudette Taylor of Goodells and defendant Culpepper of Roseville had known each other for several months prior to the date of the crimes involved in these appeals. They both knew the other defendants and Tom Leszczynski, a codefendant tried separately, except Claudette met Patterson for the first time June 15, 1971. Claudette had visited the Culpepper home as an overnight guest. Miss Culpepper had a high school graduation party June 13, 1971 to which she invited Claudette. The latter attended the party and spent the night at the Culpepper home. About 75 guests attended the party.
According to Miss Culpepper, about $80 of her graduation money and $100 from her mother's purse were missing the next day. Believing Claudette had taken the money, Miss Culpepper, the other defendants and Leszczynski drove to Port Huron to see Claudette. The trip was made in Mrs. Culpepper's Cadillac and Leszczynski drove. Defendants Behm, Patterson and Whitehead and Leszczynski were members of a motorcycle group known as the Savages whose meeting place was in the Roseville area. They were acquainted with a similar group based in Port Huron and known as Satan's Rebels. On the way to Port Huron the reason for and purpose of the trip were discussed.
At Port Huron, Patterson and Whitehead were let off at the Satan's Rebels' clubhouse and Leszczynski, Behm and Miss Culpepper continued on to locate Claudette's home. Unable to locate it, they returned to the Satan's Rebels' place and picked up Patterson and Whitehead. By inquiry at a bar, Claudette's place of employment, Marysville Plastics, was located. Patterson and Whitehead were returned to Satan's Rebels' place, and Leszczyski, Behm and Miss Culpepper returned to Marysville Plastics.
Miss Culpepper entered the plant, located Claudette and asked to speak with her. Claudette and Miss Culpepper left the plant and walked to the Cadillac where Leszczynski and Behm were. The record is in dispute as to what happened next. Claudette testified that she was forced into the car at knife-point by Behm. Miss Culpepper testified that Claudette voluntarily entered the car. In any event, Claudette and Behm entered the back seat and Miss Culpepper got in next to the driver.
At this point, there is further dispute in the record. Claudette testified that Behm had his arm around her with a knife at her throat and that he told her, 'Keep your mouth shut.' That the auto started to drive away and Claudette asked where they were going, and Leszczynski said someone wanted to talk to her. That Miss Culpepper inquired about Claudette's purse and car and that Leszczynski told Miss Culpepper to go and get the purse.
Miss Culpepper testified that she saw no knife at Claudette's throat and that she (Miss Culpepper) told Claudette that money was missing from the party. Miss Culpepper further testified that she asked Claudette if she would go with them to talk with Mrs. Culpepper. That Claudette said she would but that her purse was in the plant and that Claudette requested Miss Culpepper to get her purse and her lunch.
Miss Culpepper retrieved the purse and the lunch and returned to the car. Further record dispute appears. Claudette testified that Miss Culpepper opened the purse without permission and removed $117. All of this time Claudette said Behm had the knife at her throat. Miss Culpepper testified that she asked Claudette if she could look in the purse and that Claudette handed the purse to her. That Miss Culpepper found $117 in the purse, removed it and put it in her pocket. The record shows that Claudette withdrew $95 from the bank that day, and that on June 15, Mrs. Culpepper mailed two money orders to Claudette totalling $117.
The group then left Marysville Plastics and Leszczynski drove to Satan's Rebels' place where Patterson and Whitehead rejoined the group. Whitehead got in the front seat next to Miss Culpepper and Patterson sat in the rear with Claudette between him and Behm. At Satan's Rebels' place, Wayne Wilson, a former boyfriend of Claudette, inquired, 'Did you get her?' Wilson then said, 'I will kill her if you guys don't.' All defendants, Leszczynski and Claudette then departed for Roseville.
Further dispute in the record relates to occurrences on the trip from Port Huron to Roseville and at the Culpepper residence in Roseville. It was Claudette's testimony that on the way to Roseville Behm took off her upper clothing and Patterson took off her pants. That Behm forced her to perform fellatio on him during which Patterson was fingering her vagina. That at Culpepper's, Behm threatened her and then asked if she wanted to be killed or bought and she replied 'Bought'. Claudette then explained that 'bought' meant that she would belong either to Behm or the club and that 'they can do anything they want to me.'
Miss Culpepper testified that nothing improper occurred on the way to Roseville, and that at her home in Roseville, after discussing the missing money, the group left to get Patterson's car, he having offered to take Claudette back to Port Huron. His car was at the Savages' place.
At the Savages, Claudette testified as to repeated sexual assaults on her by the male defendants and others, but Miss Culpepper knew nothing of this. Eventually, Claudette was returned to her place of employment.
Defendants other than Culpepper have raised eleven issues on appeal and she has raised three additional issues. Our analysis of the record indicates that some of these issues require no more than summary treatment, while others merit fuller exposition. We deal with the latter first.
Defendants Patterson and Whitehead assert error because they were not granted separate trials. The grant or denial of a separate trial is discretionary, M.C.L.A. § 768.5; M.S.A. § 28.1028. Prejudice to substantial rights of the defendant must be shown to establish abuse of discretion, People v. Schram, 378 Mich. 145, 157, 142 N.W.2d 662 (1966). If the offense of kidnapping was properly charged and proved, the second issue we discuss, we can find no prejudice to substantial rights of Patterson and Whitehead because the record indicates their involvement in that offense. Although they were not present at the forceable abduction of Claudette, the inference from the record is strong that they were aware that Claudette was secretly confined against her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bolla
...released, defendant relies on People v. Mulcahey, 72 Ill.2d 282, 286, 21 Ill.Dec. 176, 381 N.E.2d 254 (1978) and People v. Behm, 45 Mich.App. 614, 207 N.W.2d 200, 205 (1973) rev'd on other grounds, 52 Mich.App. 119, 216 N.W.2d 631 (1974). In Mulcahey, the supreme court concluded that the ki......
-
People v. Gunter
...Further, defendants' testimony at trial was not inconsistent, supporting the view that no prejudice occurred. People v. Behm, 45 Mich.App. 614, 619, 207 N.W.2d 200 (1973); People v. Schram, supra, 378 Mich. at 156, 142 N.W.2d 662. We find no abuse of Defendants contend secondly that the tri......
-
People v. Koehler
...res gestae of the crime and were properly put before the jury as an integral portion of the entire transaction. See People v. Behm, 45 Mich.App. 614, 207 N.W.2d 200 (1973), and People v. Williams #2, 45 Mich.App. 630, 207 N.W.2d 180 (1973). Third, the testimony regarding defendant's alleged......
-
People v. McCarver
...within the res gestae are [72 MICHAPP 327] admissible. People v. McPherson, 38 Mich.App. 534, 197 N.W.2d 173 (1972); People v. Behm, 45 Mich.App. 614, 207 N.W.2d 200 (1973); People v. Gould, 61 Mich.App. 614, 233 N.W.2d 109 (1975). In People v. Koehler, 54 Mich.App. 624, 221 N.W.2d 398 (197......