People v. Floyd

• Decision Date: 24 December 1968
• Docket Number: No. 3,Docket No. 4147,3
• Citation: 15 Mich.App. 284,166 N.W.2d 506
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas FLOYD, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 506

166 N.W.2d 506

15 Mich.App. 284

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas FLOYD, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 4147.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

Dec. 24, 1968.

Released for Publication April 11, 1969.

Leave to Appeal Denied May 16, 1969.

Victor E. Bucknell, Bucknell & Gergely, Vicksburg, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William L. McManus, Pros. Atty., St. Joseph County, Centreville, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before LESINSKI, C.J., and FITZGERALD and TEMPLIN, ^* JJ.

TEMPLIN, Judge.

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of the crimes of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny, C.L.1948, § 750.110, as amended by P.A.1964, No. 133 (Stat.Ann.1968 Cum.Supp. § 28.305), and assault with a dangerous weapon without intending to commit the crime or murder or great bodily harm less than the crime of murder, C.L.1948, § 750.82 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.277). In his first assignment of error defendant questions whether there was sufficient evidence in the record to warrant a jury finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We find no merit in this contention. A review of the record indicates more than sufficient evidence from which the jury could make a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of both crimes. The jury is the sole judge of the facts and neither the trial court nor this court can interfere with their exercise of that right. People v. McIntosh (1967), 6 Mich.App. 62, 148 N.W.2d 220, citing People v. Miller (1942), 301 Mich. 93, 3 N.W.2d 23. If there is sufficient evidence, upon which if the jury believes it, it can find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the court may not upset that determination. People v. Paugh (1949), 324 Mich. 108, 36 N.W.2d 230; People v. Moshier (1943), 306 Mich. 714, 11 N.W.2d 300.

Error is next assigned to the testimony of the complaining witness that she identified the defendant alone at the police station and not in a lineup. The testimony of the complaining witness showed that late on the evening of October 7, 1966 the defendant entered her home at Three Rivers, Michigan, and told her that he was looking for money, that he later blindfolded her, forced her to disrobe and lie on the floor where he made lewd suggestions and advances towards her. Upon his departure she immediately notified the police, giving them a rather complete description of the defendant, including his clothing. Within a half hour the police picked up a suspect in the area who answered the general description and brought him to the complainant who rejected him unequivocally as not being the individual who had entered her home. She further testified that the following Friday morning, October 14, the police asked her early in the morning to:

'* * * come down to the police station to see if I could identify the man that they had.'

She testified that when she got to the station, a man was sitting in the office and the police asked him to stand up. An officer attending the scene then testified that:

'* * * she immediately turned and more or less broke into a cry and, her husband put his arms around her and she said, 'That's definitely the man'--without hesitation she identified him.'

The question of allowing testimony of prior identification of a defendant was considered in People v. Londe (1925), 230 Mich. 484, 203 N.W. 93, in which the Supreme Court of Michigan approved testimony by the victim and another as to identification of the defendant and the circumstances surrounding such identification at police headquarters. The more serious question of whether a lineup is required in identification matters was reviewed in People v. Serra (1942), 301 Mich. 124, 3 N.W.2d 35, in which the defendant requested a charge that there are inherent dangers in an identification where the sole identification witness is called to identify an individual as an alleged criminal rather than permitted to pick such person out of a group. The Michigan Supreme Court upheld the trial judge's denial of the requested charge and the charge given in its stead, that:

'There is no law that requires any particular method of identification. You are at liberty, as I said, to examine into all the circumstances of the case, all the testimony as bearing on the question of identity.'

The court held that the refusal of the request to charge was proper since the request dealt with the weight of the evidence and was argumentative. The United States Supreme Court, in Stovall v. Denno (1967), 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, held that single confrontations are to be condemned but are not per se unconstitutional. The question is whether the confrontation conducted was '* * * unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable...