People v. Burczyk

• Decision Date: 24 February 1944
• Docket Number: No. 91.,91.
• Citation: 308 Mich. 194,13 N.W.2d 258
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BURCZYK.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

308 Mich. 194

13 N.W.2d 258

PEOPLE

v.BURCZYK.

No. 91.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 24, 1944.

Frank J. Burczyk was convicted for conspiracy to obstruct justice, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Earl C. Pugsley, judge.

Before the Entire Bench.

Charles L. Bartlett, of Detroit, for appellant.

Herbert J. Rushton, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., of Lansing, and Daniel J. O'Hara, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

REID, Justice.

The record in this case is extremely scant. None of the testimony is set out. Defendant relies for reversal on the claimed error of the trial judge in denying motion of defendant's attorney for a separate trial from codefendant Wendell Lochbiler. Defendant appeals from his conviction for conspiracy to obstruct justice. The State's claim is that between January 2, 1935, and August 1, 1940, defendant committed such offense and further, that defendant was a deputy inspector of police of the city of Detroit in command of a designated district in which he had full charge of the enforcement of all laws and that it was his duty as inspector to enforce laws against gambling. Defendant was put on trial in April, 1942, with 66 other defendants. The trial proceeded until April 22, 1942, on which day Dr. Jaekel appeared and testified that his patient, the defendant, was taken ill and that it was indefinite when defendant could be in court; that defendant had bleeding ulcers of the stomach and that it would be at least a week or more before the bleeding could be controlled and stopped and that the routine way of treating this malady is, ‘to keep them in bed for a month. That is routine for all bleeding ulcers,’ whereupon Mr. Newman, attorney for defendant, said to the presiding judge, ‘Well, in order to clarify the record on the showing made this morning, and the testimony of the doctor, and in order not to tie up this jury, as Mr. O'Hara suggested, I move that the court grant the defendant Burczyk a separate trial, and dismiss him from this proceedingat this time. The court: The motion will be granted.’ Whereupon the trial of the other defendants proceeded without the appellant. After the trial of the other defendants had been concluded there remained this defendant, the appellant, and another former police officer, Wendell Lochbiler, who defendant says was a fugitive from justice, who had joined the United States navy, and after having been dishonorably discharged was brought back for trial near the conclusion of the trial of the 66 other defendants. Defendant claims that a fair trial was not given him because of the prejudice existing against the codefendant who had been a fugitive from justice.

There is nothing in this scant record to indicate how generally it was known that Lochbiler had been a fugitive or that this or any other matter concerning his past history was brought to the attention of the jury. Before the trial of defendants Burczyk and Lochbiler, which was set for July 1, 1942, defendant Burczyk objected to his trial...