People v. Gray

• Decision Date: 06 January 1975
• Docket Number: No. 1,Docket No. 15336,1
• Citation: 57 Mich.App. 289,225 N.W.2d 733
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. D. GRAY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 733

225 N.W.2d 733

57 Mich.App. 289

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. D. GRAY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 15336.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

Jan. 6, 1975.

Released for Publication Feb. 21, 1975.

James E. Wells, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, App. Div., Michael R. Mueller, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before DANHOF, P.J., and BRONSON, and O'HARA,* JJ.

DANHOF, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree, M.C.L.A. § 750.316; M.S.A. § 28.548. He was given the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, and he appeals. We affirm.

A party to celebrate the successful conclusion of a weekend contest for area-wide motorcyclists carried over into the early morning hours of Monday, October 4, 1971, in the headquarters of a Detroit motorcycle club. The defendant, a member of such a club, in the company of eight others, arrived at the party at approximately 1:30 a.m., just as the party was breaking up. Decedent, a member of a different motorcycle club, and three other persons were the only people left in the clubhouse at that time. For no known reason and without apparent provocation, defendant immediately began to argue with the decedent. After striking him in the face and stomach and throwing him against a jukebox, defendant turned and started to leave. Suddenly, he stopped, shouted that he was not through with decedent yet, and struck the decedent knocking him unconscious to the floor. Defendant pulled a pistol from his waistband, and shot the decedent in the back.

At trial, defendant presented an insanity defense, and also suggested that he had acted in self-defense. Members of the defendant's motorcycle club testified in direct contradiction to the other witnesses that the decedent was armed and had pulled a pistol on the defendant first. In support of his insanity defense, a clinical psychologist with extensive experience with the Center for Forensic Psychiatry testified that the defendant suffered from a 'hysterical neurosis with anti-social behavior', and that he was responding to an irresistible impulse when he shot the decedent. Another expert defense witness, a psychiatrist, agreed that defendant was legally insane. However, he concluded that defendant suffered from a 'psychoneurotic illness' which resulted in defendant's inability to distinguish between right and wrong. Following the presentation of the insanity defense, the prosecution offered nothing in rebuttal. Instructions were given, and the jury deliberated for one hour before reaching the verdict of guilty.

At various times during the course of the trial, the judge asked questions of some of the witnesses. He inquired as to how the defendant was dressed on the night of the shooting and he asked if a witness had discussed the details of the crime with other persons. The trial court asked a friend of the defendant, who had produced a gun four days before trial claiming it to have been in the possession of the decedent at the time of his death, why he waited so long to come forward. The defendant's expert witnesses were asked about their professional status and cautioned to respond to the questions of counsel rather than to engage in lengthy discourses on various aspects of mental health. On appeal, defendant argues that these interruptions were unwarranted and that they evidenced to the jury the prejudice of the trial court, thereby depriving him of a fair and impartial trial. Also of concern to the defendant are the numerous interruptions of defense counsel's closing argument to caution him not to instruct the jury on the law.

When the trial judge's questions or comments are such as to indicate that he favors one side or the other, he has invaded the province of the jury and committed reversible error. People v. Young, 364 Mich. 554, 111 N.W.2d 870 (1961). However, a trial judge has 'great power and wide discretion'; he may properly participate in the questioning of witnesses and he may exercise control over the conduct of witnesses and attorneys, but in so doing he cannot prejudice the rights of the defendant. People v. Cole, 349 Mich. 175, 84 N.W.2d 711 (1957).

The fact that the trial court asked a great many questions of the witnesses, standing alone, does not necessarily amount to prejudicial error. People v. Wilder, 383 Mich. 122, 174 N.W.2d 562 (1970). The trial judge has a right to question witnesses. People v. Ray, 2 Mich.App. 623, 141 N.W.2d 320 (1966). It is only when he displays bias by questions which reveal his personal views that a fair and impartial trial is denied. People v. Baughn, 16 Mich.App. 156, 167 N.W.2d 793 (1969). Breach of judicial impartiality will result from questions delving into collateral matters which prejudice the defendant by reflecting adversely upon the extent of his compliance with social mores. People v. Bedsole, 15 Mich.App. 459, 166 N.W.2d 642 (1969). Nevertheless, a trial judge may question witnesses in order to clarify points and to elicit additional relevant information. People v. Davison, 12 Mich.App. 429, 163 N.W.2d 10 (1968).

We have carefully examined the transcript in the present case and we do not believe that the trial judge acted improperly; he did not unduly berate counsel or interject his personal views into the proceedings; the balance of judicial impartiality was not destroyed. People v. Wilson, 21 Mich.App. 36, 174 N.W.2d 914 (1969). His contributions were designed to clear up ambiguity, and they did not unduly prejudice the defendant. People v. Spaulding, 42 Mich.App. 492, 202 N.W.2d 450 (1972), lv. den., 388 Mich. 809 (1972).

A trial judge must be allowed to exercise his supervisory authority when necessary during the course of a trial. People v. Atkinson, 35 Mich.App. 338, 192 N.W.2d 687 (1971), lv. den., 386 Mich. 772 (1971). Instructing a witness on how to conduct himself while on the stand is well within the trial judge's authority. People v. Fedderson, 327 Mich. 213, 41 N.W.2d 527 (1950). The limitations placed upon defense counsel's closing argument did not constitute an abuse of the trial judge's discretion necessary to control the proceedings before him, because proper judicial impartiality was maintained. People v. Green, 34 Mich.App. 149, 190 N.W.2d 686 (1971), lv. den., 386 Mich. 769 (1971).

Further, the trial court gave extensive cautionary instructions on the respective roles of the judge and jury, explaining to the jury that he had no intention of conveying to them his impressions on the merits of the case. Consequently, the defendant was protected from any prejudicial influence and we find no reversible error in the conduct of the trial judge. People v. Withrow, 26 Mich.App. 679, 182 N.W.2d 775 (1970), lv. den., 384 Mich. 795 (1971); People v. Lloyd, 5 Mich.App. 717, 147 N.W.2d 740 (1967).

Defendant next argues that becaue the prosecution failed to present any evidence to rebut the testimony of defendant's expert witnesses, the prosecution failed to carry its burden of proving defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt and that a directed verdict of acquittal should have been entered. This argument is virtually indistinguishable from that advanced in People v. English, 29 Mich.App. 36, 48, 49, 185 N.W.2d 139, 145, 146 (1970), lv. den., 384 Mich. 823 (1971), which discussed the presumption of sanity. In that case, it was held that although expert testimony can 'overcome the force of the presumption of sanity as a mandatory inference', it does not 'have the effect of overcoming the force of the presumption as a permissive inference to be submitted to the jury for evaluation'. The Court in English also observed that the trier of fact is not required to accept expert opinion testimony because if it were, doctors and not juries would be resolving questions of fact in our courts.

Recently these principles have been reaffirmed in People v....