People v. Gonzales, 76501
| Decision Date | 11 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 76501,76501 |
| Citation | 385 N.W.2d 585,424 Mich. 908 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvadore GONZALES, a/k/a Steven Gonzales, Defendant-Appellant. 424 Mich. 908, 385 N.W.2d 585 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Cavanagh and Archer, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
Levin, J., also would grant leave to appeal, and says:
Apart from the testimony of Rhonna Burns, there was little evidence that Gonzales was involved in the death of Elmer Evans. 1 Burns' testimony added considerably to the prosecution's proofs. 2 Her testimony was critical in linking the physical evidence found with the bodies and Evans' automobile, to the victims and Gonzales. 3
Gonzales' lawyer extensively cross-examined Burns. Her answers did not appear unusual, although she indicated some confusion and inability to remember. The cross-examination did not, however, reveal the extent to which Burns was confused as a result of having undergone hypnosis. 4
On a separate record out of the presence of the jury, Burns conceded her difficulty in distinguishing between what she remembered before hypnosis and what she remembered only after hypnosis.
This Court, on the first appearance of this prosecution, said that "to permit posthypnotic testimony would unfairly denigrate the defendant's right to cross-examination." People v. Gonzales, 415 Mich. 615, 627, 329 N.W.2d 743 (1982). Provision was made for the use of prehypnotic testimony by means of a MRE 804(b)(1) deposition. What Burns knew before hypnosis had not been preserved pursuant to MRE 804(b)(1). 5
Gonzales was unable effectively to cross-examine Burns because of the "confabulation effect" resulting from hypnosis, and was not allowed to inform the jury that she had been hypnotized and was "confabulated." 6 Gonzales was denied meaningful confrontation. 7
1 This evidence was Gonzales' statement to a detective that "[Wallach the other defendant] did't do it, I was with him all night the night it happened," that the blood on Gonzales' jacket was of the same type (type A) as the victim's, and Gonzales' absence from work during the time of the murder.
2 Both this Court and the Court of Appeals recognized that "[t]he case against defendant was based almost solely on the testimony of Rhonna Burns...." 415 Mich. 615, 617, 329 N.W.2d 743 (1982); 108 Mich.App. 145, 147, 310 N.W.2d 306 (1981).
Gonzales testified at the first trial, but did not testify at the second trial.
3 Burns testified to a conversation between Wallach, Evans and Gonzales at the Liberty Bar, that Gonzales obtained Evans' keys and left with Evans' car, that Wallach, Burns and Evans picked up Gonzales at a "warehouse" where he was waiting next to Evans' car, that the four of them drove to the house where the bodies were later discovered, that Gonzales left the car and went around the house to the right while Wallach and Evans went around to the left, that all three were gone about twenty minutes and Wallach and Gonzales returned from the same side of the house, and that the bodies were discovered on the right side of the house.
4 This Court's opinion in People v. Gonzales, 415 Mich. 615, 329 N.W.2d 743 (1982), discusses extensively the "confabulation effect"--the inability of one who has been hypnotized to distinguish between what was remembered before the hypnosis from what was remembered only after the hypnosis, as well as increased suggestibility during hypnosis.
5 The judge ruled that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Patterson
...v. Wyngaard, 151 Mich.App. 107, 112, 390 N.W.2d 694 (1986); People v. Shue, 145 Mich.App. 64, 71, 377 N.W.2d 839 (1985), lv. den. 424 Mich. 908 (1986). The 180-day rule does not apply to inmates incarcerated in county jails. People v. Merkerson, 147 Mich.App. 207, 213, 382 N.W.2d 750 (1985)......
-
People v. Caulley
...insanity before, during, and after the alleged offense. People v. Conrad, 148 Mich.App. 433, 438-441, 385 N.W.2d 277 (1986), lv. den. 424 Mich. 908 (1986). This exception does not appear to fit the facts of this case, because the evidence offered by defendant was that his underlying mental ......
-
Kauffman v. Shefman
...which may be drawn from them. Rathbun v. Starr Commonwealth for Boys, 145 Mich.App. 303, 307, 377 N.W.2d 872 (1985), lv. den. 424 Mich. 908 (1986); Local 80 Sheet Metal Workers v. Tishman Construction Corp., 103 Mich.App. 784, 787, 303 N.W.2d 893 To survive a motion for summary disposition ......
-
Gardner v. Stodgel
...absent an abuse of discretion. Rathbun v. Starr Commonwealth for Boys, 145 Mich.App. 303, 316, 377 N.W.2d 872 (1985), lv. den. 424 Mich. 908, 385 N.W.2d 585 (1986). When a trial court denies a motion to amend, the court must specify its reasons for doing so. Cummings v. Detroit, 151 Mich.Ap......
-
The offense
...v. Matulonis , 115 Mich.App. 263, 320 N.W.2d 238 (1982). See also People v. Conrad , 148 Mich.App. 433, 385 N.W.2d 277 (1986), lv den 424 Mich. 908 (1986) (statute does not automatically preclude for all time the assertion of an insanity defense if a person is rendered insane by the volunta......