People v. Bloom, Docket No. 23705
Decision Date | 05 May 1977 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 23705 |
Citation | 76 Mich.App. 405,257 N.W.2d 105 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harvey M. BLOOM, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
State Appellate Defender by James R. Neuhard, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Jack W. Scully, Pros. Atty., Prosecuting Attorneys Appellate Service by Keith D. Roberts, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MAHER, P. J. and D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr. and LETTS, * JJ.
Defendant was charged with and convicted by a jury of two counts of negligent homicide, M.C.L.A. § 750.324; M.S.A. § 28.556. Thereafter sentenced to 24 months probation and a $500 fine, defendant appeals as of right.
While defendant raises seven assignments of error, one is dispositive and we therefore limit our discussion to that single issue.
After the jury had commenced deliberations the court received a written request from the jury for a transcript of the testimony of one of the prosecution's witnesses. Out of the presence of the jury the court advised counsel that it would not honor such request. In fact the court, in pertinent part, stated:
Defense counsel strenuously objected to the court's decision not to have the testimony of the witness re-read. Thereafter the jury was called in and the court stated to the jury as follows:
Appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to read the testimony of the witness following the jury's request.
In People v. Howe, 392 Mich. 670, 221 N.W.2d 350 (1974), the Supreme Court, in discussing the law governing the reading back of testimony, stated:
" 'The general rule, well established, is that when a jury requests that testimony be read back to it both the reading and extent of reading is a matter confided to the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Klein v. Wagenheim, 379 Mich. 558, 561 (153 N.W.2d 663) (1967); People v. Walker, 371 Mich. 599, 610 (124 N.W.2d 761) (1963); Rumptz v. Leahey, 26 Mich.App. 438, 443 (182 N.W.2d 614) (1970).
" 392 Mich. at 675-676, 221 N.W.2d at 352.
In Howe, supra, the jury had requested that the testimony of the only two witnesses to the events surrounding the death of the victim be read to them. In that case the trial judge had refused the request on the basis that to give jurors bits of testimony puts too much emphasis on it.
In reversing the trial court, the Supreme Court in Howe stated:
"A trial court must exercise its discretion to assure fairness and to refuse unreasonable requests; but, it cannot simply refuse to grant the jury's request for fear of placing too much emphasis on the testimony of one or two witnesses." 392 Mich. at 676, 221 N.W.2d at 352.
Mr. Justice Swainson, the author of Howe, supra, went on to say:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Blackburn, Docket No. 78-929
...... See also [94 Mich.App. 716] People v. Bloom, 76 Mich.App. 405, 409, 257 N.W.2d 105 (1977). As stated above, however, this does not end our inquiry. The state is not barred from ......
-
People v. Allen
...discretion in choosing not to reinstruct them. See People v. Howe, 392 Mich. 670, 676, 221 N.W.2d 350 (1974); People v. Bloom, 76 Mich.App. 405, 407-409, 257 N.W.2d 105 (1977). We find that there is no reversible error based on defendant's felony-firearm contentions. See Wayne County Prosec......