People v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 19 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 31222 |
| Citation | 285 N.W.2d 307,92 Mich.App. 393 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph C. BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Hazlett & Judge by Mary J. Rinne and Judith W. Judge, Ann Arbor, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William F. Delhey, Pros. Atty., James S. Sexsmith, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GILLIS, P. J., and R. B. BURNS and KAUFMAN, JJ.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with intent to commit larceny therein. M.C.L. § 750.110; M.S.A. § 28.305. He appeals raising three issues, two of which became moot when a corrected transcript of the trial was filed. The third puts in issue the fairness of the defendant's trial which was partially held in concert with the trial of his codefendant, Harold Martin.
A motion to consolidate the trials of defendant Brooks and Martin had been made but at the beginning of trial it became apparent that Martin's defense would incriminate defendant Brooks. After a conference with the prosecutor and both defense counsel, the trial court decided that in the interest of judicial economy the cases would be tried in part together with separate juries. Upon the suggestion of counsel a procedure was arrived at in which both juries would be present for the prosecutor's opening statement and the prosecutor's direct examination of witnesses. At all other times only one jury would be present, each hearing the matters relevant to its own case. The trial court stated that the jury would be excused at the request of either defendant. No objections were made to this procedure during the dual trials.
During his instructions, the trial court commented on the success of the procedure:
Defendant now asserts that the dual trial procedure was totally unacceptable and resulted in confusion and chaos. Defendant claims that he was denied a fair trial under the United States and Michigan Constitutions and also that he was deprived of a separate trial which was mandated by the inconsistent defense of defendant Martin.
The trial court recognized the problem inherent in jointly trying defendant Brooks and Martin. The trial court's solution to this problem, rather than separate trials, was simultaneous trials before separate juries. The first question which this Court must answer is whether that solution provided defendant with the same protections as he would have enjoyed through a separate trial.
In People v. Hurst, 396 Mich. 1, 9, 238 N.W.2d 6 (1976), the Michigan Supreme Court pinpointed the difficulty which arose in a joint trial of defendants who presented inconsistent defenses: "By insisting on a joint trial, the state succeeded in pitting one defendant against the other, each trying to save himself at the detriment of the other." The Court noted that such a situation may produce a "spectacle" in which the prosecution is relieved of carrying its burden of proof by the attempt of a defendant to clear himself at the expense of his codefendant. Id., 7, 238 N.W.2d 6.
This Court believes that the dual jury procedure used in this case successfully avoided convicting one defendant through the efforts of the other. The Brooks jury heard none of the evidence presented by defendant Martin. Their verdict could only have been based on the evidence presented by the prosecution and in defendant Brooks' defense.
Having found that the dual jury procedure avoided the pitfalls inherent in a joint trial of defendant Brooks and Martin, the Court must next determine if defendant was afforded a trial which comports with the rights and protections of the United States and Michigan Constitutions.
U.S.Const., Art. III, § 2(3), provides: "The Trial of all Crimes * * * shall be by Jury."
U.S.Const., Am. VI, provides:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Harris
...alleged]; State v. Watson (La.1981) 397 So.2d 1337, 1342 ["appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudice"]; People v. Brooks (1979) 92 Mich.App. 393, 285 N.W.2d 307, 309 ["defendant was afforded a fair trial"]; State v. Hernandez (1978) 163 N.J.Super. 283, 394 A.2d 883, 885 ["defendant rece......
-
State v. Hunt
...who assert antagonistic or inconsistent defenses. See People v. Kramer, 103 Mich.App. 747, 303 N.W.2d 880 (1981); People v. Brooks, 92 Mich.App. 393, 285 N.W.2d 307 (1979). 2 It has also been proposed for use in complex litigation where the laws of two or more states must be applied. See Ma......
-
State v. Prasertphong
...1190-91. ¶ 92 Use of dual juries is acceptable when the result avoids the "spectacle" of antagonistic defenses. People v. Brooks, 92 Mich.App. 393, 285 N.W.2d 307, 308 (1979). This court has generally approved the use of dual juries, recognizing that trial judges have broad discretion to em......
-
People v. Hana
...People v. Greenberg, supra; People v. Jeffrey Kramer, supra, 103 Mich.App. at pp. 754-755, 303 N.W.2d 880; People v. Brooks, 92 Mich.App. 393, 396-397, 285 N.W.2d 307 (1979). See, generally, anno: Propriety of use of multiple juries at joint trial of multiple defendants in state criminal pr......
-
Joint criminal trials with multiple juries: why they are used and suggested ways to implement them.
...840 P. 2d at 1011-12; Harris, 767 P. 2d at 630; Hernandez, 394 A.2d at 885. [28] See Harris, 767 P. 2d at 631; People v. Brooks, 285 N.W. 2d 307 (Mich. App. 1979); Hernandez, 394 A.2d at 885; see also DeRobertis, 758 F. 2d [29] See Bruton, 391 U.S. 123; Velez, 596 So. 2d 1197. [30] United S......