People v. Freeman, Docket No. 9811
| Decision Date | 01 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 9811,1 |
| Citation | 188 N.W.2d 200,32 Mich.App. 321 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Hill FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Charles H. Brown, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Leonard Meyers, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DANHOF, P.J., and HOLBROOK and BRONSON, JJ.
The defendant was charged with first-degree murder of Lewis Mitchell. After a trial by jury he was convicted of manslaughter. M.C.L.A. § 750.321 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.553). He now appeals raising three issues.
In August of 1968 William Walker and Lewis Mitchell were driving in Walker's Cadillac when they saw the defendant in another car. Walker pulled into a corner gas station and the defendant followed. Walker testified that the defendant left his vehicle and approached Walker's car complaining to the deceased, Lewis Mitchell, about $5 which had not been paid. The deceased put his hands on the dashboard and at this time the defendant began shooting with a .45-caliber gun which he was carrying in his hand. Several shots entered Mitchell and Walker was also wounded. Walker then drove to General Hospital in Hamtramck where Mitchell died shortly thereafter.
The defendant's theory was self-defense. He testified that his weapon was concealed and that he drew it and shot only after he saw Walker and Mitchell draw pistols on him. He stated that after he shot he became frightened and ran to his car.
At trial William Walker testified that, when the deceased saw the defendant's car, the deceased stated that he was frightened because he was not supposed to be in the vicinity. The defendant contends that this testimony was admitted erroneously, because it is hearsay.
When the declarant's state of mind is relevant a statement of a presently existing mental state is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. In this case the declarant's mental condition was relevant because the fact that he was frightened tends to negate any idea that he was the aggressor.
Defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in not granting a mistrial when the prosecutor asked the witness whether he was afraid of anything. The trial court sustained the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Parker
...to rebut the defense contention that Reddic was the aggressor and that Mitchell shot him in self-defense. See People v. Freeman, 32 Mich.App. 321, 323, 188 N.W.2d 200 (1971). Bearing in mind the limited purpose for which the recording was admitted, we observe that the fact that small portio......
-
Lambeth v. Rivard
..."I'm gonna kill him." Petitioner's prior threat to kill the victim undercuts any self-defense claim. See e.g. People v. Freeman, 32 Mich.App. 321, 323; 188 N.W.2d 200 (1971). Moreover, petitioner's conduct after the shooting seriously calls into question his self-defense claim. First, there......
-
People v. White
...the admission of statements indicative of the state of mind of a homicide victim where self-defense is raised. People v. Freeman, 32 Mich.App. 321, 188 N.W.2d 200 (1971) (statement of fear of the defendant); People v. Ake, 362 Mich. 134, 106 N.W.2d 800 (1961) (threats against the Here, howe......
-
People v. Kozlow
...Defendant raised the issue and now must live with it. See People v. Jones, 293 Mich. 409, 292 N.W. 350 (1940); People v. Freeman, 32 Mich.App. 321, 188 N.W.2d 200 (1971). The trial court in this case did not give, nor was it requested to give, a special instruction as to the limited purpose......