People v. Chism

• Decision Date: 23 April 1969
• Docket Number: Docket No. 5068,No. 3,3
• Citation: 17 Mich.App. 196,169 N.W.2d 192
• Parties: , 51 A.L.R.3d 1104 PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enoch CHISM, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 192

169 N.W.2d 192

17 Mich.App. 196, 51 A.L.R.3d 1104

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Enoch CHISM, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 5068.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

April 23, 1969.

Released for Publication July 29, 1969.

William R. Worth, Battle Creek, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol.Gen., Lansing, John M. Jereck, Pros.Atty., Calhoun County, Marshall, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before HOLBROOK, P.J., KAVANAGH* and McINTYRE**, JJ.

McINTYRE, Judge.

Defendant was arrested in connection with an explosion which caused the death of Nola Puyear.The court appointed counsel at public expense for the limited purpose of representation at the preliminary examination, without deciding defendant's right to counsel for trial.After preliminary examination, the defendant was bound over for trial on a charge of murder in the first degree and stood mute upon arraignment.Before arraignment, defendant requested the court to appoint an attorney to represent him at public expense and three formal hearings were held concerning whether the accused was financially unable to provide counsel for himself within the meaning of GCR 1963, 785.3(1).At these hearings testimony was taken from the defendant, his wife, and an officer of a savings and loan association.It developed that at the time of the alleged offense the defendant and his wife held real estate as tenants by the entireties with a market value of approximately $14,000, subject to a mortgage indebtedness of $2,000, and that he owned jointly with his wife two automobiles worth about $3,200, that he was a joint tenant with his wife in 30 shares of stock worth about $3,100, that he had title to a Honda motorcycle which was actually a gift to the minor son of the parties, and that the wife of the defendant had about $1,500, in cash in a savings account.

A divorce action had been filed by the defendant's wife well before the date of the alleged offense but little progress had been made towards the disposition of that cause.

Between the first hearing and the second hearing relating to the ability of defendant to retain counsel at his own expense, the defendant had conveyed whatever interest he may have had in all of the above described property to his wife.The wife together with the notary public had brought the papers already prepared to the county jail, and defendant executed them there.At the second hearing it was established that the defendant's wife refused to contribute to his defense or seek counsel for him on the basis that all of the joint property which was now held in her own right as a Feme sole, since she considered herself judicially separated from her husband, was necessary for the future support of her 14-year-old son.The defendant testified that he sought to retain counsel but was advised that he must have a $5,000 retainer fee which he was unable to provide, which his wife was unwilling to give him, and that he was therefore financially unable to provide counsel for his defense.

The court filed an extensive finding in which it was stated that the court had no reason to believe that the wife of the defendant would cooperate in any way in the hiring of an attorney for the defendant and that further hearing would develop no additional facts to clarify the position of the various parties.Obviously anticipating appeal the court seeks a guideline to determine such questions as what effect joint ownership of property has on the determination of indigency, what consideration should be given to a deliberate transfer of property interest while standing charged with a...