People v. Eddington

• Decision Date: 24 April 1970
• Docket Number: No. 3,Docket No. 5986,3
• Citation: 178 N.W.2d 686,23 Mich.App. 210
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William H. EDDINGTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 686

178 N.W.2d 686

23 Mich.App. 210

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William H. EDDINGTON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 5986.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

April 24, 1970.

Released for Publication July 23, 1970.

James A. Brisbois, Saginaw, for defendant-appellant; Philip R. Sturtz, Allan C. Schmid, Saginaw, Jerold H. Israel, Ann Arbor, of counsel.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., George E. Thick, II, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Kuebler, Special Asst. Pros. Atty., Gerald K. Dent, Asst. Pros. Atty., Saginaw County, for plaintiff-appellee; Paul G. Miller, Jr., Lansing, of counsel.

Before J. H. GILLIS, P.J., and McGREGOR and QUINN, JJ.

J. H. GILLIS, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of the first degree murders of Carl and Gertrude Middledorf. M.C.L.A. § 750.316 (Stat.Ann. 1954 Rev. § 28.548). He appeals as of right, alleging an illegal search and seizure and trial error.

On the afternoon of February 4, 1967, Detective Robert Shelby of the Saginaw police department was told by an informer that Ronald Johnson and William Eddington had been involved in the Saginaw murders of Dr. Archer Claytor and his wife on February 2, 1967. Detective Shelby was also informed that the 2 men were responsible for an armed robbery which had occurred at 916 Norman street, Saginaw, on January 25, 1967. This information was based on statements made to the informer by Johnson. A victim of the Norman street robbery had previously identified Johnson from a mug shot as one of the two men who had robbed her.

On February 5, 1967, Detective Shelby was called to 1409 Cherry street to investigate the killings of Mr. and Mrs. Middledorf. Shelby noticed that a window in the back door of the Middledorf house had been broken, presumably by the killer in gaining entry to the house. While in the house, Sergeant Christensen of the crime laboratory showed Shelby a distinctive heel print found near the bathtub where Mrs. Middledorf's body was discovered. The print had been dusted with fingerprint powder to make it more readily visible. A second print was found on a piece of glass that had been broken from the window of the back door. The print was distinctive because it was smaller than a print made from a regular man's shoe and had two or three ridges that stood out on the impression. After examining the print, Detective Shelby concluded that the print was made by 'Stetson' shoes. He testified at the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress:

'A. The print was a--I would say a print might have come from a Stetson shoe. Now, the print was smaller than a regular man's shoe and probably approach the size of a woman's cuban heel shoe, but they were cross characteristics of a man's shoe, the crossings, also striations.

'Q. And the print itself?

'A. Yes, sir.

'Q. Have you ever owned any Stetson Shoes?

'A. Yes.

'Q. What kind of shoes does Stetson usually make?

'A. Well, the heel is relatively smaller than the regular men's wear. It is more of a cuban type heel. I guess you could--well, the appearance of the print looks like it could have been a beatle type boot.

'Q. What?

'A. A beatle type boot.

'Q. What do you mean by Cuban type heel?

'A. I refer to a Cuban type heel as a heel little higher than the regular heel of the shoes men wear, the sole of the shoe. I mean it would be tapered.'

None of the shoes examined in the Middledorf house matched Shelby's description.

After leaving the Middledorf residence, Detective Shelby gathered a number of photographs and proceeded to 916 Norman street to interview Jack Prince, a second victim of the robbery. Prince identified William Eddington as one of the participants. At this juncture of his investigation, Shelby believed that there was a connection between the robbery and the Claytor and Middledorf murders. The robbery victims and the decedents were all elderly people; the weapon used in the robbery and the Claytor murders was a small caliber firearm; Ronald Johnson possessed a small caliber pistol which at one time had been owned by the informer; 'Billy' (Eddington) had this gun when the informer sought to procure it for the police. Eddington was also known to have broken into certain homes by way of the back door as was done in each of the murders; furthermore, the victims of both the Claytor and Middledorf homicides had been bound with material found at the scene. Accordingly, Shelby immediately suspected that Eddington had been involved in the Middledorf murders.

Shelby then phoned the prosecutor and asked him to procure an arrest warrant against Eddington on a charge of robbery. At a subsequent meeting Shelby and the prosecutor discussed whether it was the appropriate time to pick up both Johnson and Eddington on charges of murder. It was decided that Shelby would arrest Eddington for robbery only.

On the evening of February 5, 1967, just before midnight, Detective Shelby, accompanied by several police officers, drove to Eddington's residence at 1417 Farwell. Neither Detective Shelby nor the police officers possessed a warrant for Eddington's arrest. Upon arrival, Shelby observed a car, which he knew to be Eddington's parked near the Farwell address. As he approached Eddington's apartment, Shelby observed foot and heel prints in freshly fallen snow leading to the apartment. On close examination, Shelby noticed that these prints were similar to those which he had seen at the Middledorf residence. No such prints were observed leading away from Eddington's apartment door. Detective Shelby testified that, at this moment, he was convinced that Eddington had committed the Middledorf murders.

Shelby then approached the apartment door and heard the rustle of more than one person in the apartment. 'At least I seem--it appeared to me that there was more than one person in the house, the apartment.' A knock on the door produced no immediate response. A female voice then asked who was there. Shelby identified himself and asked if 'Billy' was home. He was told that Eddington had left the apartment that evening at 10 p.m. Detective Shelby and the officers turned to leave in order to discuss whether to stake out the house, break the door, or to procure an arrest warrant. As the officers were leaving, the female inside Eddington's apartment said, 'Mr. Shelby, is that you?' Detective Shelby again identified himself. Thereafter a female came to the door, identified by Shelby as Johnetta Hawkins, Eddington's girlfriend, whom Shelby had known for some time. Miss Hawkins repeated that Eddington was gone; however, Detective Shelby--not totally relying on the representation that Eddington was absent--asked if he could look around. Miss Hawkins opened the door and told Shelby to go right ahead. Detective Shelby then drew his gun and entered the apartment.

Detective Shelby described his subsequent conduct as follows:

'Q. After you said you wanted to look and see for yourself what did you do?

'A. I went--first I turned to the left. I went to the living room on into the bedroom, looked under the bed, as I was going through the closet there is a connecting closet between the bedroom and smaller bedroom I would call it or utility room. I noticed a pair of black shoes setting there. I was looking in the closet to see if Eddington could have hidden in there.

'Q. Was he in there?

'A. No, sir. I picked the shoes up, examined them, saw that they were the heel was similar to the one I had seen outside, and the heel was the characteristic of the one as the Middledorf one in the bathroom where Mrs. Middledorf was found. I also saw fine particles which I thought could have been glass in them. I set the shoes down, come on back through the small bedroom into the kitchen and told Lieutenant Killingsworth he is not here, let's go.'

The officers then left the apartment to discuss what should be done. A police car was called to the scene to wait in the vicinity until the prosecutor could procure orders for warrants. Detective Shelby appeared before a magistrate and obtained a warrant for Eddington's arrest and a search warrant for the shoes observed in Eddington's apartment. The officers returned to the apartment and found Miss Hawkins had left and had padlocked the door. They obtained entry by forcing the door and took possession of the shoes.

Eddington was arrested on February 8th and charged with the murders of Carl and Gertrude Middledorf. Before trial, defense counsel filed a timely motion to suppress people's exhibit 2, the pair of shoes taken from Eddington's apartment. This motion was denied following an evidentiary hearing. At trial, the people introduced into evidence both the shoes and pictures of heel prints and impressions made from the shoes by the state police. This evidence, together with testimony that similar prints were found at the scene of the crime, tended to show that defendant was the perpetrator of the alleged murders.

I

Defendant first contends that the admission of people's exhibit 2 as evidence against him was constitutional error. He alleges that Detective Shelby's examination of the shoes at the time of Shelby's original entry into defendant's apartment constituted an illegal search in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, of the United States Constitution. See Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 84 A.L.R.2d 933.

At the outset, we note that consideration of defendant's constitutional claim is not obviated by the fact that Detective Shelby obtained a warrant to search for defendant's shoes After having discovered them in defendant's apartment. If, as defendant contends, Detective Shelby's action in lifting the shoes and examining their heels constituted an illegal search, the subsequent seizure of the shoes pursuant to a warrant would, on this record, be the 'fruit of the poisonous tree,' thus subject to...