People v. Blakes

• Decision Date: 26 July 1966
• Docket Number: Nos. 143--145,No. 3,s. 143--145,3
• Citation: 143 N.W.2d 769,4 Mich.App. 13
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter BLAKES, Emmitt Pruitt and Willis Brown, Defendants-Appellants. Cal
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 769

143 N.W.2d 769

4 Mich.App. 13

The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter BLAKES, Emmitt Pruitt and Willis Brown, Defendants-Appellants.

Cal. Nos. 143--145.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

July 26, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 22, 1966.

F. Jack Neller, Battle Creek, for appellants.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, James K. Miller, Pros. Atty., Kent County, Grand Rapids, for appellee.

Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and BURNS and McGREGOR, JJ.

BURNS, Judge.

The defendants were charged under 2 counts with conspiracy to violate gaming laws of the State of Michigan. ¹ From September 27, 1963, until the arrests on December 21, 1963, the defendants had been under surveillance by the Grand Rapids police department. The defendants were observed communicating with one another and exchanging materials with one another in a regular daily pattern.

The defendants were observed frequently going into a house at 431 Grandville avenue, although none of the defendants were residents at said address.

The observations of police officers, Clifford Norton and James Patterson, were recorded by the officers in 5 notebooks which were offered and aditted in evidence at the time of trial.

One Andrew Chavaus, a deputy sheriff from Cass county, came to Grand Rapids at the request of the Grand Rapids police department to assist in acquiring evidence against the defendants. While in Grand Rapids he placed bets in the numbers operation with Emmitt Pruitt on December 18, 19, 20 and 21, 1963.

Defendant Blakes was arrested on December 21, 1963, at approximately 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. The arresting officers proceeded with the defendant to 431 Grandville avenue and met other officers at said address. The police officers had a valid search warrant. They took the defendant Blakes with them and started to search the apartment. Blakes said, 'The stuff that you fellows are looking for is over there in that room right down there off the hall.'

The officers found gambling paraphernalia, including duplicate numbers slips, and specifically the duplicates of the tickets sold by Pruitt to Chavaus.

The defendants waived a jury trial and were found guilty of violating the gambling laws by the judge.

Defendants appeal their convictions on 4 grounds, contending: 1, there was not sufficient evidence to convict each of the 3 defendants with criminal conspiracy; 2, the testimony of Andrew Chavaus should not have been admitted; 3, the statement of Walter Blakes, and evidence seized as a result of said statement, should not have been admitted in evidence; and 4, the memoranda of the police officers should not have been admitted in evidence.

We shall answer the claims of said defendants in reverse order of their presentation.

Several spiral notebooks containing detailed observations by the police officers, Norton and Patterson, in regard to their investigation of the defendants' activities, were admitted in evidence. The officers testified to the effect that the notebooks and memoranda were accurate and correct; reading said notes did not refresh their recollection to the extent that they could actually remember the events. The notebooks were admitted as 'past recollection recorded.' These notebooks were admitted in evidence and some read from the witness stand. The record shows that the attorney for the defendants objected to the reading of the contents of the notebooks. However, once the court ruled that the contents of the notebooks could be read into evidence on the basis of 'past recollection recorded', he did not renew his objection and, in effect, did agree, subject to his original objection, that the notebooks could be received in evidence without the entire contents being read from the witness stand.

The defendants may have a valid contention that one cannot cross-examine a notebook. However, the law of the State of Michigan as set forth in the case of People v. Hobson (1963), 369 Mich. 189, 119 N.W.2d 581, does allow such evidence to be received as past recollection recorded.

The statement by Blakes did not implicate any of the other defendants, but it did indicate that he had knowledge of the evidence seized (gambling paraphernalia) in the raid. The evidence was seized by virtue of a valid search warrant and was properly admitted in evidence.

As to the testimony of witness Chavaus being admitted before the introduction of other evidence of a conspiracy, there must be a beginning and an end. Chavaus did place bets with Pruitt, the deplicates of which were seized at the scene of the raid and admitted in evidence. The...