People v. Bowen
Decision Date | 23 August 1977 |
Docket Number | Docket Nos. 26199,25289,25347 and 25758 |
Citation | 77 Mich.App. 684,259 N.W.2d 189 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ivie BOWEN, William Henry Irby, Tyrone Peters, LaMarr M. Leatherwood a/k/a Darryl Leatherwood, Defendants-Appellants. 77 Mich.App. 684, 259 N.W.2d 189 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[77 MICHAPP 685] Richard L. Ruby, Southfield, for Ivie Bowen.
Carl Ziemba, Detroit, for Wm. Irby.
[77 MICHAPP 686] George C. Dovas, Birmingham, for Tyrone Peters.
Richard R. Nelson, Detroit, for Leatherwood.
[77 MICHAPP 685] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward R. Wilson, Appellate Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., Larry L. Roberts, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before J. H. GILLIS, P. J., and V. J. BRENNAN and ROBINSON, * JJ.
The four defendants were all convicted of three counts of first-degree felony murder by a jury on April 16, 1975. M.C.L.A. § 750.316; M.S.A. § 28.548. They appeal as of right.
The most troublesome issue of several raised by defendants concerns part of the trial court's instructions to the jury:
Defense counsel objected to this charge in a timely manner.
While we question this type of comment by a trial judge during jury instructions, we do not find that this particular comment requires reversal.
A trial judge's comment in the course of instructing the jury amounts to reversible error if the judge "charged for conviction". People v. [77 MICHAPP 687] Brown, 43 Mich.App. 170, 204 N.W.2d 72, 74 (1972), People v. Wichman, 15 Mich.App. 110, 166 N.W.2d 298 (1968). 1
In People v. Brown, supra, the following instruction was held to amount to a "charge for conviction":
In effect, the trial judge charged the jury that they should convict the defendant for the sake of law and order, not on the basis of the evidence before them.
In contrast to the instruction in Brown, the instruction in the instant case did not tell the jury [77 MICHAPP 688] that they should convict defendants regardless of the evidence.
The trial judge here apparently tried to state that there are conflicting rights, the rights of defendants to a fair trial and the right of the state to a conviction if the evidence warrants it. I. e., the victims' "rights" include a right to a conviction of those persons proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed murder. The judge did not just stress the victims' rights, but told the jury to "balance" the rights of each side. This comment did not amount to a "charge for conviction".
Defendants next contend that a prosecution witness was incompetent and that the trial court should have stricken his testimony. However, the record shows no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in allowing the witness to testify. See People v. Atcher, 65 Mich.App. 734, 238 N.W.2d 389 (1975).
Likewise, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excusing the nonproduction of a res gestae witness. There was ample evidence in the record of the prosecution's due diligence in trying to locate the witness. See People v. Blacksmith, 66 Mich.App. 216, 238 N.W.2d 810 (1975).
The trial judge did not err in refusing to allow impeachment of a prosecution witness with a misdemeanor conviction. People v. Renno, 392 Mich. 45, 219 N.W.2d 422 (1974), has been interpreted to prohibit the impeachment of prosecution witnesses with misdemeanor convictions. In People v. Alphus Harris, 56 Mich.App. 517, 528, 224 N.W.2d 680, 685 (1974), this Court stated:
Thus, the trial judge correctly ruled that misdemeanor convictions were inadmissible for impeachment of the witness. 2
The trial court also did not err in allowing the prosecutor, on redirect examination, to inquire into a hearsay statement deliberately elicited by defense counsel on cross-examination. A witness should be allowed to explain an answer elicited on cross-examination. Carreras v. Honeggers & Co., Inc., 68 Mich.App. 716, 244 N.W.2d 10 (1976).
Defendant's contention that a pretrial examination procedure was unduly suggestive is not preserved for appeal where defense counsel knew of [77 MICHAPP 690] the circumstances alleged to have been improper, but raises that issue for the first time on appeal. People v. Flippo, 70 Mich.App. 652, 247 N.W.2d 321 (1976).
During the prosecutor's closing argument, he stated: "And William Irby has the audacity to get on the stand, under oath, and tell you that he was not there." This statement is objected to for the first time on appeal; no curative instruction was requested. Without necessarily endorsing this type of argument, or finding it improper, we find that any possible prejudice could have been cured by timely objection and a proper instruction. Therefore,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Bennett
... ... A police pursuit is a "show of authority" that by definition does not rely upon "voluntary cooperation." See People v. Howard, 50 N.Y.2d 583, 592, 430 N.Y.S.2d 578, 585, 408 N.E.2d 908, 914, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1023, 101 S.Ct. 590, 66 L.Ed.2d 484 (1980); ... ...
-
People v. Harris
...to all witnesses. People v. Harris, 56 Mich.App. 517, 528, 224 N.W.2d [86 MICHAPP 305] 680, 685 (1974). See also People v. Bowen, 77 Mich.App. 684, 259 N.W.2d 189 (1977), People v. Foster, 77 Mich.App. 604, 259 N.W.2d 153 Prior consistent statements are inadmissible to rehabilitate a witnes......
-
People v. Krist
...a fair trial or effective assistance of counsel. People v. Garcia, supra, 398 Mich. 264-266, 247 N.W.2d 547; People v. Bowen, 77 Mich.App. 684, 690, 259 N.W.2d 189 (1977); People v. Penn, 70 Mich.App. 638, 648, 247 N.W.2d 575 (1976). The brief questions at issue, designed to impugn the witn......
-
Anderson v. Perry
...case simply did not convey to the jurors that they should convict defendant regardless of the evidence. See People v. Bowen, 77 Mich. App 684, 687-688; 259 N.W.2d 189 (1977).Considering the trial court's right to "comment on the evidence,the testimony, and the character of the witnesses," M......