People v. Goldman, 44
| Decision Date | 31 July 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 44,44 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ben GOLDMAN, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Frederick W. Poel, Grand Rapids, and Fred R. Walker, Detroit, William Henry Gallagher, Detroit, of counsel, for appellant.
Thomas M. Kavanagh, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., Lansing, and Stuart Hoffius, Pros. Atty., of Kent County, Grand Rapids, for the People.
Before the Entire Bench.
Defendant appeals from a conviction of breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to steal.
It is the claim of the people that one Andrew Johnson, Jr., and two other unidentified persons perpetrated the actual breaking, entering and stealing, but that defendant planned the crime and furnished a truck for transporting the goods to be stolen.
After his arrest, Johnson made a statement to officers which was taken and transcribed by a stenographer and thereafter read, corrected and signed by Johnson. The statement admitted his guilt and definitely named defendant as the person who had planned the crime and furnished the truck to be used in its commission and who was to have received the stolen property, disposed of it and paid Johnson for his part in the offense.
At the preliminary examination in this case, held after Johnson had been convicted and was awaiting sentence, he refused to give any direct testimony about the commission of the crime or implicating defendant therewith. The prosecuting attorney then questioned him about the written statement he had given the officers. After considerable evasion and being instructed by the court to answer, he testified that he had given, read, corrected and signed the statement and that its contents were true to the best of his knowledge. Counsel for defendant, who stated that he was also Johnson's attorney, then obtained a recess during the examination for the purpose of advising him of his legal rights, after which Johnson continued to refuse to testify about the facts relating to the crime, saying that he was afraid to do so. Counsel for defendant declined to cross-examine him.
At trial Johnson refused to give answer to any question concerning the crime. He also refused to admit having given the written statement or the testimony at the preliminary examination above recited. He claimed no constitutional privilege as a basis for his refusal, but stated that he had a reason which he said he did not care to discuss. Defendant was represented at trial by counsel who declined the opportunity to cross-examine Johnson. The transcript of Johnson's testimony, taken at the preliminary examination, was then identified by the court reporter who had taken and transcribed it, it was received in evidence, and the prosecuting attorney, sworn as a witness, identified a people's exhibit as the written statement given by Johnson to which he, as a witness at the preliminary examination, had referred and which he then had testified was true, whereupon it was received into evidence at the trial. Both were read to the jury.
While there were other proofs tieing defendant in with the crime, particularly with planning and preparations for it, without Johnson's written statement and testimony at the examination there was not sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dortch
...or is "mentally incapable" of testifying, cases interpreting it have given it an expansive reading. See, E. g., People v. Goldman, 349 Mich. 77, 84 N.W.2d 241 (1957) (refusal to testify), People v. Pickett, 339 Mich. 294, 63 N.W.2d 681 (1954) (witness invoked Fifth Amendment), People v. Wal......
-
People v. White, 1
...He was in attendance at the trial. He did not refuse to testify or assert a privilege not to testify. See People v. Goldman, 349 Mich. 77, 84 N.W.2d 241 (1957) (refusal to testify); People v. Pickett, 339 Mich. 294, 63 N.W.2d 681 (1954) (claim of privilege). Here, the witness had changed hi......
-
People v. Moore, Docket No. 27272
...den., 349 U.S. 937, 75 S.Ct. 781, 99 L.Ed. 1266 (1955); People v. Szeles, 18 Mich.App. 575, 171 N.W.2d 550 (1969); People v. Goldman, 349 Mich. 77, 84 N.W.2d 241 (1957). Defendant's attempt to distinguish the above cases by saying that in the present instance the witness may have had legiti......
-
People v. Whalen
...former-testimony exception, whereas People v. White, supra, did not. However, a case analogous to the present case is People v. Goldman, 349 Mich. 77, 84 N.W.2d 241 (1957), referred to in People v. White, supra. In People v. Goldman, supra, the defendant's accomplice[129 MICHAPP 751] was ca......