People v. Curtis, Docket No. 9008
| Decision Date | 25 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 9008,1 |
| Citation | 192 N.W.2d 10,34 Mich.App. 616 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Lee CURTIS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Daniel Siefer, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Robert A. Reuther, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and HOLBROOK, JJ.
The defendant and two codefendants were convicted after a jury trial of robbery armed. M.C.L.A. § 750.529 (Stat.Ann.1971 Cum.Supp. § 28.797). A line-up was held on October 4, 1968, the day after the robbery occurred. The line-up contained the three codefendants and four other men. All were Negroes. An attorney was present representing the rights of the codefendants. There was no request in the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the fairness of the line-up.
On appeal the question is whether considering the totality of the circumstances was the show-up in which the defendant was identified unduly suggestive and in violation of his constitutional right to due process of law.
When counsel is present at a show-up the burden is on the defendant to allege and factually support a claim that the confrontation was unnecessarily suggestive. See People v. Young (1970), 21 Mich.App. 684, 176 N.W.2d 420. The defendant has not carried that burden.
Additionally, there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt apart from the identifications at the line-up. People v. Childers (1969), 20 Mich.App. 639, 174 N.W.2d 565. The question sought to be reviewed is so unsubstantial as to require no argument or formal submission.
Motion to affirm is granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Blassingame
...is on the defendant to factually support the claim that the identification procedures were unnecessarily suggestive. People v. Curtis, 34 Mich.App. 616, 192 N.W.2d 10 (1971). At the original preliminary examination held in January, 1971, the complainant testified that she identified the def......
-
People v. Gunter
...where defendant was represented by counsel at the lineup. People v. Rivera, supra, at 431, 232 N.W.2d 655, People v. Curtis, 34 Mich.App. 616, 617, 192 N.W.2d 10 (1971). In this case, defendants claim the lineup was impermissibly suggestive because (1) they were forced to appear before the ......
-
People v. Dean
...61 Mich.App. 427, 431, 232 N.W.2d 727 (1975), People v. Blassingame, 59 Mich.App. 327, 229 N.W.2d 438 (1975), People v. Curtis, 34 Mich.App. 616, 192 N.W.2d 10 (1971), People v. Young, 21 Mich.App. 684, 176 N.W.2d 420 (1970). In measuring this burden, Rivera indicates a court must consider ......
-
People v. Rivard
...burden rests with defendant to allege and factually support a claim that the lineup was impermissibly suggestive. People v. Curtis, 34 Mich.App. 616, 192 N.W.2d 10 (1971). Defendant, in this case, has failed to carry that burden. Defendant, as compared to the other members of the lineup, wa......