People v. Chaney
Decision Date | 26 January 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 5932,1 |
Citation | 174 N.W.2d 919,21 Mich.App. 120 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lonnie Howard CHANEY, Defendant-Appellant |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Virginia A. Sobotka, Lincoln Park, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief Appellate Div., Robert A. Reuther, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and J. H. GILLIS and QUINN, JJ.
Defendant was convicted by the trial court upon waiver of a jury trial of unarmed robbery 1 and sentenced to a prison term of 3 to 15 years.
Defendant claims error in plaintiff's failure to indorse and produce certain alleged Res gestae witnesses, 2 i.e., the three or four other youths present at the time of the robbery. One of these witnesses was arrested at the same time as the defendant. He is therefore considered an accomplice to the crime. The rule requiring the people to indorse on the information and call all Res gestae witnesses does not apply to accomplices. People v. Brown (1969), 15 Mich.App. 600, 167 N.W.2d 107. With regard to the other witnesses, there is no evidence that the plaintiff knew their names or whereabouts until defendant mentioned them on the witness stand. Apparently they ran from the scene of the crime before the arrival of the police. The people are under no obligation to indorse the names of unknown witnesses upon the information. People v. Todaro (1931), 253 Mich. 367, 235 N.W. 185, aff'd on rehearing (1932), 256 Mich. 427, 240 N.W. 90. M.C.L.A. § 767.40 (Stat.Ann.1969 Cum.Supp. § 28.980).
Defendant's second claim of error concerns the prosecutor's allegedly prejudicial remarks during closing argument. Again no objection was made below. Examining the record we do not find any error in the closing argument.
Defendant's third allegation of error arises out of the colloquy had before commencement of proofs:
'The Court: Any opening statement?
'Mr. Poehlman (prosecutor): Waive opening statement.
'Mr. Cohn: I will waive opening statement.'
The defendant now claims that each counsel waived his own opening statement but not opposing counsel's and therefore a violation of GCR 1963, 507.1 occurred:
There was no objection below to this claimed omission. We find no violation of the spirit of the rule.
Fi...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Jones v. State
-
People v. Morgan, Docket No. 7558
...call as witnesses All noncumulative Res gestae witnesses, this duty does Not extend to the calling of Accomplices. People v. Chaney (1970), 21 Mich.App. 120, 174 N.W.2d 919. People v. Brown (1969), 15 Mich.App. 600, 167 N.W.2d 107. No error Defendant's final allegation of error concerns the......
-
People v. Mitchell
...this duty does not extend to the calling of accomplices. People v. Brown, 15 Mich.App. 600, 167 N.W.2d 107 (1969); People v. Chaney, 21 Mich.App. 120, 174 N.W.2d 919 (1970); People v. Morgan, 24 Mich.App. 660, 180 N.W.2d 842 (1970); People v. Sanders, 28 Mich.App. 510, 184 N.W.2d 487 (1970)......
-
People v. Fidel
...Alonzo Sanders (1970), 28 Mich.App. 510, 184 N.W.2d 487; People v. Moore (1971), 29 Mich.App. 597, 185 N.W.2d 834; People v. Chaney (1970), 21 Mich.App. 120, 174 N.W.2d 919; People v. Crown (1971), 33 Mich.App. 266, 189 N.W.2d 810; People v. Green (1971), 32 Mich.App. 482, 189 N.W.2d * MICH......