People v. Crown
Decision Date | 19 April 1977 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 26131 |
Citation | 75 Mich.App. 206,254 N.W.2d 843 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John T. CROWN, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Weed & Weed, by Robert G. Weed, Lansing, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Peter Houk, Pros. by Lee Wm. Atkinson, Chief Appellate Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DANHOF, C. J., and T. M. BURNS and McDONALD, * JJ.
The parties submit the following agreed statement of facts:
On September 17, 1975, defendant was sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment.
In this appeal as of right defendant makes 22 assignments of error on the part of the trial court. We discuss them seriatim.
1. The trial court did not err in ruling that there had been probable cause to arrest the defendant. People v. Walker, 385 Mich. 565, 189 N.W.2d 234 (1971), is inapposite. Not only was the informant not anonymous, but he provided the police with shell casings determined to have been fired from the gun used in the murders. Better physical evidence corroborating the informant's statement is difficult to imagine.
2. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence taken in warrantless searches of the house in which defendant was living. The owner of the house, Mrs. Howe, freely consented to the search, by her own testimony. The evidence used at trial was found in rooms used by all the occupants. See People v. Chism, 390 Mich. 104, 134-137, 211 N.W.2d 193 (1973).
3. The trial judge did not err in denying defendant's motion to require the prosecution to elect between the charges of felony murder and premeditated murder. See People v. Fullwood, 51 Mich.App. 476, 215 N.W.2d 594 (1974).
4. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to be permitted 20 peremptory challenges for each of the four capital counts. See GCR 1963, 511.5 M.C.L.A. § 768.13; M.S.A. § 28.1036.
5. There is no merit to the contention that the trial court failed to follow the statutory procedure for granting immunity from prosecution to a witness. Defendant cites no statutory requirement that wasn't met.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a jury view. Such questions are for the trial judge to decide. M.C.L.A. § 768.28; M.S.A. § 28.1051. Where, as here, the judge gave cogent reasons for denying the request, an abuse of discretion cannot be said to have occurred. See People v. Curry, 49 Mich.App. 64, 211 N.W.2d 254 (1973).
7. The trial court did not err in quashing the subpoenas of the witnesses sought to be examined before the jury on the results of polygraph examinations of an uncharged "confessor" to the murders. Such evidence is inadmissible. People v. Frechette, 380 Mich. 64, 155 N.W.2d 830 (1968). This rule cannot be "updated" without a factual record upon which to reevaluate the rule. As an aside, we question the relevance of the truthfulness of the confessor's belief that he committed the murders.
8. Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that it was error to allow the prosecutor to examine a defense expert concerning his findings. Even if the facts could be stretched to bring this episode under the work product rule of United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 45 L.Ed. 2d 141 (1975), we can envision no prejudice to the defendant arising from the ruling. No mention was made of the witness's retention by the defense and the testimony was not unfavorable to the defense.
9. The trial court did not err in refusing to declare a mistrial when a witness described a Miranda rights form as having defendant's signature on it. We can add nothing to the trial court's well considered opinion on the question. There was, quite simply, no prejudicial error.
10. The trial court did not err reversibly in ruling that no prior convictions for felonies occurring more than ten years prior to trial would be admissible to impeach the credibility of witnesses. Defendant's argument that rules for impeachment of witnesses should be different from those relating to impeachment of the accused is answered by existing precedent. See People v. Falkner, 389 Mich. 682, 209 N.W.2d 193 (1973); People v. Sesson, 45 Mich.App. 288, 206 N.W.2d 495 (1973); People v. James, 36 Mich.App. 550, 194 N.W.2d 57 (1971).
11. There was no error in the jury instructions relating to the credibility of an accomplice who had been granted immunity from prosecution. The substance of the instructions requested by defendant were given, albeit not in the exact language requested. The requirements of People v. Love, 43 Mich.App. 608, 204 N.W.2d 714 (1972), if applicable to the instant case, were met.
12. The trial court did not err in failing to sua sponte reinstruct the jury on the use of "common scheme" testimony. There was no request for the instruction at the close of the proofs, there was no objection to its omission, and there was no prejudice in the trial court's failure to give it.
13. The trial court did not err in instructing on defendant's potential guilt as an aider and abettor. The evidence introduced at trial supported the theory that defendant aided in the shooting of either or both of the Olsons, as well as the theory that he alone did the shootings. People v. Lamson, 44 Mich.App. 447, 205 N.W.2d 189 (1973), controls.
14. The trial court did not err in not instructing the jury on lesser included offenses on the felony-murder counts.
None of the defendant's proposed instructions dealt with lesser included offenses to felony murder. Defendant objected to the murder instructions only insofar as they defined premeditation. Effective January 1, 1976, in every first-degree murder case the trial court must instruct on second-degree murder, even absent a request, as second-degree murder is a necessarily lesser included offense. People v. Jenkins, 395 Mich. 440, 443, 236 N.W.2d 503 (1975); People v. Carter, 395 Mich. 434, 437, 236 N.W.2d 500 (1975); People v. Jones, 395 Mich. 379, 390, 236 N.W.2d 461 (1975); People v. Henry, 395 Mich. 367, 374, 236 N.W.2d 489 (1975). The failure to instruct the jury on manslaughter in a first-degree murder case is not error absent a request for such an instruction. People v. Henry, supra.
The trial in the case at bar occurred in 1975 prior to the effective date of the above rule concerning second-degree murder.
15. Defendant is correct in arguing that the findings of the jury were, in part, reversibly inconsistent.
The information charged defendant with four counts of first degree murder:
Count 1 felony murder of Mr. Olson
Count 2 felony murder of Mrs. Olson
Count 3 premeditated murder of Mr. Olson
Count 4 premeditated murder of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Lowe
...( Const.1963, art. 1, sec. 15). There was only one murder and therefore there could be only one crime.); see also People v. Crown, 75 Mich.App. 206, 254 N.W.2d 843 (1977).Pennsylvania: Commonwealth v. Monteil, 273 Pa.Super. 94, 416 A.2d 1105 (1979) (The involuntary manslaughter conviction m......
-
State v. Willoughby
...Pitts, 569 F.2d 343 (5th Cir.1978); People v. Dunigan, 96 Ill.App.3d 799, 52 Ill.Dec. 427, 421 N.E.2d 1319 (1981); People v. Crown, 75 Mich.App. 206, 254 N.W.2d 843 (1977). However, the better practice is to require the witness to appear and claim any privilege or immunity he may have or ra......
-
People v. Allen
...is second-degree murder plus the additional element of committing, or attempting to commit, an enumerated felony. People v. Crown, 75 Mich.App. 206, 215, 254 N.W.2d 843 (1977). Thus, if a first-degree murder verdict is to be returned, the homicide must be found to have occurred during the c......
-
People v. Wright
...murder minus premeditation or the enumerated felony." 395 Mich. at 437-438, 236 N.W.2d at 502. See, also, People v. Crown, 75 Mich.App. 206, 215, 254 N.W.2d 843 (1977). Murder in the second degree, a crime which must be established before murder in the first degree can be established, requi......