People v. Cameron

• Decision Date: 29 March 1974
• Docket Number: Docket No. 16571,No. 1,1
• Citation: People v. Cameron, 217 N.W.2d 401, 52 Mich.App. 463 (Mich. App. 1974)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwight CAMERON, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 401

217 N.W.2d 401

52 Mich.App. 463

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwight CAMERON, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 16571.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

March 29, 1974.

Released for Publication May 8, 1974.

Juste A. Rosati, Detroit (Carl Ziemba, Detroit, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Gerard A. Poehlman, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and T. M. BURNS and VanVALKENBURG,* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter. ¹ He was sentenced to a term of from 8 1/2 to 15 years imprisonment and appeals as of right.

Of the numerous errors raised by the defendant, we find only one persuasive, namely, whether the trial court erred by excluding from evidence testimony concerning the contents of a message from the deceased to the defendant which purportedly contained threats of violence. Inasmuch as the question under consideration relates to the admissibility of certain testimonial evidence, it is not necessary to chronicle the details of the homicide itself.

The message in question from the deceased was relayed to the defendant through an intermediary while the deceased was incarcerated in connection with certain other crimes committed in conjunction with the defendant. At trial the intermediary related that the message was one of violence. The prosecution, at this point, objected on the grounds of hearsay. The objection was sustained, and the trial court ordered the witness's answer stricken from the record.

The defendant interposed the claim of self-defense and in addition took the stand in his own behalf. He testified that he and the decedent had engaged in prior criminal activity together and were eventually arrested for stealing tires. Defendant explained that he confessed to the crime, petitioned the court for youthful trainee status, and was subsequently sentenced to two years probation. The decedent was given a jail sentence for his part in the crime. The defendant continued his testimony saying that he received a message from the decedent via a go-between while the decedent was in jail. When defense counsel asked the defendant to relate the contents of the message, the prosecution once again objected asserting that the defendant's answer was 'double hearsay' and was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The trial court sustained the objection, and defendant's answer was not taken.

For an accused to prevail on a claim of self-defense, it must be shown that under all of the circumstances as they appeared to him at the time, he was in danger of suffering death or great bodily harm. People v. Vail, 49 Mich.App. 578, 212 N.W.2d 268 (1973); 1 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law & Procedure (2d ed.), § 26, pp. 47--48. Consequently, in order to apprise the trier of fact of all of the circumstances known to the accused at the time of the assault or homicide, it is well settled that prior threats made by the victim to the accused are properly admissible into evidence. 1 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law & Procedure (2d ed.) § 418, p. 501. Moreover, the admission of the victim's out of court statements (I.e. threats made to the accused) is not repugnant to the hearsay rule. As stated by Professor McCormick in analyzing the various exceptions to the hearsay rule:

'The same rationale...