People v. Debreczeny

• Decision Date: 29 March 1977
• Docket Number: Docket No. 26011
• Citation: 253 N.W.2d 776,74 Mich.App. 391
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tibor DEBRECZENY, Defendant-Appellant. 74 Mich.App. 391, 253 N.W.2d 776
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 776

253 N.W.2d 776

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tibor DEBRECZENY, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 26011.

74 Mich.App. 391, 253 N.W.2d 776

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

March 29, 1977.

Released for Publication June 2, 1977.

[74 MICHAPP 393] Raymond C. Mullins, Ypsilanti, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., W. F. Delhey, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before DANHOF, C. J., and KELLY and D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr., JJ.

D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr., Judge.

Defendant was convicted by the court, sitting without a jury, of the offense of taking indecent liberties with an eight-year-old girl. M.C.L.A. § 750.336; M.S.A. § 28.568. Subsequently sentenced to 2 1/2 to 10 years imprisonment, defendant appeals his conviction as of right.

Initially, defendant claims that the District Court abused its discretion by binding defendant over to the Circuit Court to stand trial. Defendant now asserts certain procedural irregularities in the preliminary examination. Defendant did not object to such alleged irregularities prior to or during the trial. Hence, he has waived his right to object and cannot now raise this issue on appeal. People v. Childrey, 65 Mich.App. 276, 237 N.W.2d 288 (1975).

Next defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing one Diane Davis, a policewoman, to testify over defendant's objection as to the contents of her conversation with the victim which took place early to mid-morning [74 MICHAPP 394] on the day following the alleged incident. The incident took place on a Sunday afternoon. It was reported to the police the same day; however, Ms. Davis was not on duty at the time and it was her duty, to the exclusion of others, to interview young children suspected of having been sexually assaulted. Since the declarant of the out-of-court statement testified to and substantiated Ms. Davis' testimony, because Ms. Davis' testimony was largely cumulative and because the trial court was sitting alone and without a jury, we could reject defendant's contention on the basis of People v. Payne, 37 Mich.App. 442, 194 N.W.2d 906 (1971). It was the testimony of the victim that while playing games in a swimming pool, defendant swam between her legs, forced his hand inside her bathing suit and inserted a finger into her vagina. The testimony of Ms. Davis substantiated this prior testimony of the victim. We choose, however, to go one step further. In sex offenses, hearsay statements made by a victim of tender years to a witness who subsequently testifies to the content of these declarations are admissible as part of the "res gestae" of the crime if the delay from the time of the incident to the time of the conversation is adequately explained. People v. Payne, supra; People v. Baker, 251 Mich. 322, 232 N.W. 381 (1930); People v. Davison, 12 Mich.App. 429, 163 N.W.2d 10 (1968). We hold that where the alleged act of indecent liberties occurs on a Sunday afternoon, is reported to the police the same day, where the person in charge of interviewing young children with respect to such allegations is absent from duty, and where the statement is made at the earliest opportunity the following morning, the testimony of such interviewer is admissible as part of the "res gestae", the delay having been adequately explained.

[74 MICHAPP 395] Defendant further contends that the trial court erred by not examining the complaining witness to determine whether she had sufficient intelligence and sense of obligation to tell the truth as required by M.C.L.A. § 600.2163; M.S.A. § 27A.2163. ¹ Here the complaining witness was 9 years and 10 months old at the time of trial. While it is true that the trial court did not do so prior to any testimony being taken, the court did in fact do so following re-direct examination by the prosecutor. Moreover at no time did the defendant object. In a bench trial, where the trial judge is the sole judge of credibility and what weight, if any, to accord a witness' testimony, we find no reversible error with the procedure herein utilized and especially so absent objection.

Defendant also contends that he was denied a fair trial because of the prosecution's failing to call all res gestae witnesses and by the trial court's allowing the prosecutor to endorse additional res gestae witnesses during the course of trial. Such claims must also fail. Here no motion for a new trial was ever filed. People v. Robinson, 390 Mich. 629, 213 N.W.2d 106 (1973). Furthermore, the late endorsement of witnesses is within the discretion of the trial court. People v. Harrison, 44 Mich.App. 578, 205 N.W.2d 900 (1973). A review of the record reveals that none of the witnesses subsequently endorsed were crucial to the People's case nor does the record show that their endorsement or subsequent testimony denied defendant a fair trial. Hence no abuse of discretion has been shown.

[74 MICHAPP 396] Lastly, defendant asserts he was denied his right to a speedy trial. Approximately 20 months elapsed between the date of defendant's arrest and the commencement of trial. In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that in determining whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated, a balancing test should be used which should take into account the following four factors: (1) length of delay; (2) reason for the delay; (3) defendant's assertion of his right; and, (4) prejudice to the defendant. The record reveals a delay of but 20 months, a period of time comparable to the delay in People v. Grimmett, 388 Mich. 590, 202 N.W.2d 278 (1972), wherein the length of delay was not found unreasonable. Further review of the record reveals that the delay was not the fault of the prosecution but due to disqualification of the District Judge, reassignment of the case by Circuit Judge Ager to Circuit Judge Deake who had already been assigned a companion case and a congested court docket. Moreover, defendant was released on bond...