People v. Dorsey, Docket No. 13528
| Decision Date | 23 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 13528,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 45 Mich.App. 230,206 N.W.2d 459 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randolph Herman DORSEY, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Robert F. Leonard, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Kuebler, Chief Assistant Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before QUINN, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and BYRNS, * JJ.
Defendant's non-jury trial resulted in his conviction of extortion, M.C.L.A. § 750.213; M.S.A. § 28.410. He was sentenced and he appeals.
In an unnecessarily voluminous brief, defendant raises and discusses seven issues and two sub-issues. Most of the issues as stated do not comply with GCR 1963, 813.1; they are not set forth in 'the briefest terms'. Concisely stated the issues are:
1. Was it reversible error for the prosecuting attorney to ask defendant the nature of a prior charge not resulting in conviction?
2. Was it reversible error for the trial judge to look at the preliminary examination transcript?
3. Did the trial judge commit reversible error in not requiring production of an endorsed witness?
4. Was there testimony at the preliminary examination to establish a threat to complainant?
5. Did the failure of the prosecuting attorney to disclose contempt proceedings against complainant constitute suppression of evidence?
6. Is it reversible error for the trial judge to consider a pending charge against defendant in passing sentence?
7. Does the sentence given violate People v. Tanner, 387 Mich. 683, 199 N.W.2d 202 (1972)?
The gist of the extortion for which defendant was convicted arose from the complainant's charge that he caused her to solicit for purposes of prostitution in order to raise money needed by defendant. That after successful solicitation, she was compelled to give defendant money she received from the customer because of defendant's threats and actions.
Our review of the record does not establish that the prosecuting attorney interrogated defendant as to the nature of a prior charge not resulting in conviction. The record does establish interrogation as to the nature of a prior charge which defendant admitted resulted in his conviction.
Under the following circumstances, the trial judge examined the preliminary examination transcript. During the cross-examination of complainant, the record discloses:
'Q. Now you recall testifying in District Court do you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you at any time while you were in District Court make any statement to the Court that Mr. Dorsey threatened you?
A. Yes, I think I did.
Defendant claims reversible error under the holding in People v. Ramsey, 385 Mich. 221, 187 N.W.2d 887 (1971). We hold Ramsey inapplicable and we find no error.
The alleged error concerning the nonproduction of a witness relates to Dr. Crawford. He examined complainant 13 days after the events which gave rise to this prosecution. Defendant labels him a res gestae witness in the face of a specific finding by the trial judge that Dr. Crawford was not a res gestae witness and a record which fully supports that finding.
Dr. Crawford had moved to West Virginia prior to trial where he was working in an understaffed hospital. The testimony of Dr. Crawford would have been cumulative in view of the testimony of complainant and officer Wood concerning complainant's injuries and the photos of those injuries. We consider the claimed reversible error in not producing Dr. Crawford entirely specious.
By assuming that the preliminary examination transcript did not contain evidence of a threat, defendant makes an apparently valid argument that complainant's trial testimony that she was threatened was coerced by the contempt proceedings brought against her. The testimony of complainant at preliminary examination discloses that defendant would not let her go home unless she went on the street and 'hustled' for him and returned her earnings to him, and that defendant physically assaulted her when she failed to give him money. Complainant further testified at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Potts
...charges against a defendant in passing sentence. People v. Davis, (41 Mich.App. 683, 200 N.W.2d 779 (1972)); People v. Dorsey, 45 Mich.App. 230, 206 N.W.2d 459 (1973); and (3) other offenses were considered and denied by the defendant without proof that defendant had in fact committed such ......
-
People v. Petrella
...(3) whether "hindsight discloses * * * that [the] defense could have put the evidence to not insignificant use". People v. Dorsey, 45 Mich.App. 230, 235, 206 N.W.2d 459 (1973), lv. den. 389 Mich. 793 (1973). The prosecutor, relying on People v. Gibson, 115 Mich.App. 622, 629, 321 N.W.2d 749......
-
People v. Amison
...insignificant use', defendant will be held to a 'considerably higher' standard of materiality. Id. at 147. See also People v. Dorsey, 45 Mich.App. 230, 206 N.W.2d 459 (1973), Lv. den. 389 Mich. 793 (1973). Other courts which have considered the due process ramifications of lost tape recordi......
-
People v. Drake
...L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). See also Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), People v. Dorsey, 45 Mich.App. 230, 235--236, 206 N.W.2d 459 (1973), Lv. den. 390 Mich. 763 (1973). Given the fact that plaintiff's intent is irrelevant to our determination, it is......