People v. Bortnik, Docket No. 7472
| Decision Date | 30 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 7472,No. 3,3 |
| Citation | 184 N.W.2d 275,28 Mich.App. 198 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John K. BORTNIK, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Arthur Staton, Jr., Ford, Kriekard, Brown & Staton, Kalamazoo, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Donald A. Burge, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and KELLEY, *, JJ.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of breaking a safe with the intent to commit a felony. M.C.L.A. § 750.531 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.799). The testimony of Larry Craddock, an alleged accomplice, implicated the defendant in this crime. Specifically, Craddock testified that he and the defendant together committed the crime and shared in proceeds from the safe. Defense counsel sought to discredit Craddock's incriminating testimony by showing that Craddock, through his attorney, had agreed to and was well aware of a 'deal' offered by the prosecution which would be extremely beneficial to Craddock if Craddock implicated the defendant in the crime. 1
To create the inference that Craddock's testimony was motivated more by the beneficial 'deal' than the truth, it was essential to show that Craddock knew of the agreement. When defendant's attorney examined Craddock's attorney in an attempt to impeach the prior testimony of Craddock, who denied any knowledge of the deal, the trial court expressly ruled that any communications between Craddock and his attorney were privileged. The ruling was incorrect and severely hampered the defendant in his defense. Craddock was the only witness who implicated the defendant in this crime and this ruling prevented defendant from attacking his credibility. When an accomplice testifies on behalf of the state and implicates a third person he waives any and all privileges. He cannot testify to those facts supporting his story and then claim privilege to defeat cross-examination. Alderman v. People (1857), 4 Mich. 414; People v. Gallagher (1889), 75 Mich. 512, 42 N.W. 1063.
Both Alderman and Gallagher represent the principle that both client and counsel may be compelled to disclose their confidential communications when the client turns state's evidence against a codefendant. It is well settled that the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client and not the attorney.
Thus, if the client waives the privilege, his attorney cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Waclawski
...furthermore, "it is well settled that the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client and not the attorney." People v. Bortnik, 28 Mich.App. 198, 201, 184 N.W.2d 275 (1970). As such, defendant may not assert a privilege that is not his to assert. The privilege belonged only to his forme......
-
People v. Reed
...against him was permitted after testifying but before the jury went out to plead to a lesser offense. See also People v. Bortnik, 28 Mich.App. 198, 184 N.W.2d 275 (1970). Therefore, we hold that the trial judge erroneously limited the scope of the Brady hearing, and that once requested, suc......
-
People v. Emanuel
...such visits was barred by the psychiatrist-patient privilege. A case factually quite similar to the instant case is People v. Bortnik, 28 Mich.App. 198, 184 N.W.2d 275 (1970). There, an alleged accomplice testified against the defendant and then denied any knowledge of a "deal" with the pro......
-
People v. Mobley
...People v. Robinson, 306 Mich. 167, 10 N.W.2d 817 (1943); People v. Roxborough, 307 Mich. 575, 12 N.W.2d 466 (1943); People v. Bortnik, 28 Mich.App. 198, 184 N.W.2d 275 (1970). We agree with this latter contention. In each of these cases the accomplice was either subpoenaed to take the stand......