People v. Dubose, Docket No. 27190
| Citation | 91 Mich.App. 633,283 N.W.2d 644 |
| Decision Date | 25 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 27190 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David DUBOSE, Defendant-Appellant. 91 Mich.App. 633, 283 N.W.2d 644 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
[91 MICHAPP 634] Raymond G. Mullins, Ypsilanti, for defendant-appellant.
[91 MICHAPP 633] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William F. Delhey, Pros. Atty., David S. Swartz, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
[91 MICHAPP 634] Before RILEY, P. J., and T. M. BURNS and BEASLEY, JJ.
Defendant was jury convicted of delivery of heroin, M.C.L. § 335.341(1)(a); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(a). He was sentenced to three to ten years in prison and appeals as of right.
A police informant purchased heroin from the defendant. The purchase was made with police money and the informant was fitted by the police with a tape recorder and monitoring device during the transaction.
Defendant argues that several errors were made by the trial court.
We find no error in the trial court's conclusion that defendant was not entrapped into committing the offense. GCR 1963, 517.1. A mere offer of an opportunity to commit a crime is insufficient to establish entrapment. People v. Lassen, 65 Mich.App. 720, 238 N.W.2d 384 (1975).
The trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the tape recording of the transaction. The argument extending the warrant requirement to the facts of this case stretches credulity. Otherwise, sufficient exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless "search and seizure". See People v. Pulley, 66 Mich.App. 321, 328-329, 239 N.W.2d 366 (1976).
We find no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in admitting the tape and the heroin into evidence. Proper foundations were laid and questions of the probative quality of the evidence were properly left to the jury. See People v. Kremko, 52 Mich.App. 565, 573, 218 N.W.2d 112 (1974).
[91 MICHAPP 635] It was error for the court officer to make an assertion of fact to a juror regarding the location of vehicles at the view of the crime site. Defendant does not explain and we cannot envision how the error was prejudicial. If there was prejudice, it was cured by the trial court's instructions.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lucas
...v. Perry, 91 Mich.App. 79, 282 N.W.2d 14 (1979); People v. Hall, 88 Mich.App. 324, 276 N.W.2d 897 (1979).8 Cf. People v. Dubose, 91 Mich.App. 633, 283 N.W.2d 644 (1977).9 The Court's entire analysis of this issue was as follows:In People v. Beavers, 393 Mich. 554, 227 N.W.2d 511 (1975), cer......
-
People v. Fisher
...of privacy as serious as that which occurs when a participant transmits a conversation to a third party. Cf. People v. Dubose, 91 Mich.App. 633, 283 N.W.2d 644 (1977). However, the instant case did not involve electronic devices. Defendant made his telephone call from an unenclosed telephon......
-
People v. Knight
...v. Atkins, 96 Mich.App. 672, 293 N.W.2d 671 (1980); People v. Perry, 91 Mich.App. 79, 282 N.W.2d 14 (1979), with People v. Dubose, 91 Mich.App. 633, 283 N.W.2d 644 (1977), and Judge Danhof's dissenting opinion in People v. Hall, 88 Mich.App. 324, 276 N.W.2d 897 (1979). We find it unnecessar......
-
People v. Phillips
...for his life. An argument extending the warrant requirement to the facts of this case would stretch credulity. People v. Dubose, 91 Mich.App. 633, 283 N.W.2d 644 (1977). Indeed, no standing existed for the defendants to claim a right of privacy as they were not in a place owned or occupied ......