People v. Connor

• Decision Date: 03 June 1957
• Docket Number: No. 45,45
• Citation: 348 Mich. 456,83 N.W.2d 315
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Lawrence CONNOR, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 315

83 N.W.2d 315

348 Mich. 456

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v.Lawrence CONNOR, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 45.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 3, 1957.

Charles C. Legatz, Bay City, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas M. Kavanagh, Atty. Gen. of Michigan, Edmund E. Shepherd, Solicitor Gen., Lansing, Ira W. Butterfield, Prosecuting Atty., Bay City, James Scott Wood, Asst. Prosecuting Atty., Bay City, for plaintiff and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

SHARPE, Justice.

The information filed in the circuit court for Bay county in this case charged the defendant with breaking and entering the I.G.A. grocery store located at 102State Street, Bay City, Michigan, on March 4, 1954, with intent to commit larceny therein.Upon trial defendant was convicted and sentenced for a term of not less than 8 years.Upon leave being granted defendant appeals.

During the trial two res gestae witnesses, Donald Stanik and Leonard Fracowiak, testified and admitted their guilt in connection with the crime.It appears that on March 4, 1954, Donald Stanik was on probation for a burglary he was convicted of in Saginaw county in 1952.He also admitted the commission of two other burglaries in Bay City and Kawkawlin after the I.G.A. burglary.Leonard Fracowiak also participated in the I.G.A. burglary and so testified.He also participated with Stanik in the two additional burglaries.Neither of these witnesses were prosecuted for the two burglaries committed subsequent to the I.G.A. burglary.

Both of these witnesses testified that they broke into the I.G.A. store and carried the safe outside where they received help from defendant, Lawrence Connor, in putting it into the trunk of Connor's automobile.

In appealing defendant urges that the trial court improperly restricted defense counsel in his cross- examination of witnesses Stanik, Fracowiak and Sergeant Aldrich.The gist of this complaint is that the trial court refused to permit defendant's counsel to show the interest and bias of the named witnesses.As an example, defense counsel sought to show why the People's witness Stanik did not testify to certain incidents upon the preliminary examination.His answer was that he was not asked the question.Defendant also states that he was not permitted to show the relationship between the two res gestae witnesses.Defendant was only restricted from showing the relationship of one of the res gestae witnesses to the wife of the other res gestae witness.There was no error in the ruling of the trial court.Defendant also complains because the trial court excluded a question as to whether a witness 'expected to be leniently treated.'The following took place during the trial:

'Q.Youexpected to be leniently treated, did you not, if you cooperated by telling the police that Connor was with you?A.Well, I expected to be sent back to Saginaw.

'Mr. Legatz: I move that that be stricken out.That isn't responsive.

'Q.Youexpected to be leniently treated----

'The Court(interposing): Well, what do you mean by leniently treated, Mr. Legatz?That's not a specifice question, I don't believe.One person might term something leniency and another might not.

'Mr. Legatz: Well, let's see, your Honor, if the witness understands it, and if he said he doesn't know what I mean, then we'll----

'The Court(interposing): I think it is the Court's duty to interrupt when a question is asked which is not a clear question, and in my opinion that is not a clear question.

'Q.Well, didn't you expect some consideration or something, some favor, some consideration so far as the penalties for your offenses were concerned if you told the police that Connor was involved in this burglary, didn't you expect something like that?

* * *

* * *

'Q.I asked you if you expected consideration, failure to prosecute, or any leniency in connection with the three burglaries you committed, did you expect that?A.Well, you say failure to prosecute?

'Q.Did you?Yes.A.I expected it because they told me that they would file a nolle pros.'

It clearly appears that the witness answered the question asked.There is no basis for an error on this colloquy.We do not find that defense counsel was unduly restricted in his cross-examination of the res gestae witnesses.

It is also urged that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecuting attorney to elicit from Stanik the information relative to taking a safe to defendant's home by Stanik and Fracowiak, and also allowing the prosecuting attorney to elicit from another People's witness the fact that a frogman hired to locate the safe brought up two safes from the creek.In discussing this issue we have in mind that defendant was not charged with participating in the two subsequent robberies and the evidence shows that he was not present when these two robberies were committed.The record shows the following:

'Trojanowicz, Chester, called as a witness on behalf of the People, testified as follows:

'Direct Examination

'By Mr. Wood:

'Prior to a statement by Donald Stanik, I did not know where the safe taken in this prosecution was located.He admitted his guilt.He took me and Sergeant Aldrich to the spot where the safe was supposed to be.Prior to raising the safe, I contacted a frogman.He went down in the water of the creek.

'Q.And what was the result?A.He brought out two safes.

'Q.And I ask you Lieutenant, to look at People's ExhibitNo. 1 and ask you if that is one of the safes that was-- A.Yes, that's one of the safes that was taken out.'

It should be noted that the subject of safes was first brought to the attention of the jury by defense counsel's questioning about subsequent burglaries.Moreover, defendant was not charged with any robbery of another safe.We fail to find any prejudicial error on this issue.

It is also urged that the court was in error in permitting People's witness Aldrich over defendant's objection, to testify to a custom of dropping all charges against a defendant on probation.The record shows that Stanik had participated in three burglaries.No complaints were filed against him for two of these burglaries.A complaint was filed against Fracowiak for only the I.G.A. burglary.Witness Aldrich testified that a defendant who is on probation is returned to the probation department and not prosecuted on new charges.It is urged that the police and prosecutor approved dropping the charges against Stanik and Fracowiak in return for their testimony against defendant.Witness Aldrich stated that it was customary to drop...