People v. Griner, Docket No. 8199
| Decision Date | 17 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 8199,1 |
| Citation | 30 Mich.App. 612,186 N.W.2d 800 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George W. GRINER, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James C. Howarth, 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., Angelo A. Pentolino, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DANHOF, P.J., and HOLBROOK and VANDER WAL, * JJ.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree, M.C.L.A. § 750.316 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.548). He now appeals that verdict alleging several errors.
At 8 p.m. on July 16, 1968 the defendant shot his ex-wife Alma with a shotgun. The defenses were temporary insanity and self-defense. Several neighbors testified that they saw the defendant shoot the deceased. There was some variation in the testimony as to whether he shot her as she was running away from him or as she was lying on the ground. The defendant said he couldn't remember what happened after the deceased started running. The deceased had no weapon with her. The pathologist stated that Mrs. Griner was 4 feet 11 inches tall and weighed 105 pounds. He said she died from two shotgun wounds in her back.
The first error alleged is that a Non-resgestae witness known to the prosecution long before trial but not indorsed on the information until the date of trial should not have been allowed to testify against the defendant. The prosecutor stated that the reason for the delay in adding the witness, the defendant's daughter, was that the police were not aware of what she was going to testify to until a short time before the date of the trial. The objection of the defense was that they only had seven days' notice of the motion to indorse.
M.C.L.A. § 767.40 (Stat.Ann.1970 Cum.Supp. § 28.980) provides that names of additional witnesses may be indorsed before or during the trial by leave of the court and upon such conditions as the court shall determine. The ultimate question for a reviewing court is whether the trial court abused its discretion, with the burden ordinarily on the party asserting the abuse. People v. Talison (1970), 21 Mich.App. 459, 175 N.W.2d 519. The defendant has shown no prejudice resulting from the late indorsement. We find no abuse of the trial court's discretion.
Next the defendant argues that the facts in this case do not demonstrate sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to support a first degree murder conviction. Deliberation and premeditation can be inferred from the character of the weapon used, the wounds inflicted, the circumstances surrounding the killing, the acts, conduct, and language of the accused before and after the killing, and the improbability of the story told by him. People v. Wolf (1893), 95 Mich. 625, 55 N.W. 357. We have reviewed the evidence and we think it was sufficient to support a first degree murder conviction. The Michigan cases cited by the defendant are factually distinguishable.
It is also argued that the defendant was not properly advised of his constitutional rights so that certain inculpatory statements allegedly made by him would be inadmissible into evidence. While we agree that patrolman Plemmons' attempt to give the Miranda warnings to the defendant was legally deficient, it does not follow that trial error was committed. The requirements set forth in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 apply to questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody, or otherwise deprived of his freedom. All of the statements in question were volunteered. Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred and their admissibility is not affected by the Miranda decision. One was made before the defendant was taken into custody. Some were made to relatives while the defendant was in custody in a police...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Faust
...case and there is no evidence to support an instruction. See, People v. Silver, 16 Cal.2d 714, 108 P.2d 4 (1940); People v. Griner, 30 Mich.App. 612, 186 N.W.2d 800 (1971); Whisenhunt v. State, 279 P.2d 366 (Okla. Here, Faust did not assert self-defense and did not seek to produce evidence ......
-
People v. Charles
...the killing. People v. Lem Dumas, 25 Mich.App. 173, 181 N.W.2d 89 (1970), lv. den., 384 Mich. 800 (1971), People v. Griner, 30 Mich.App. 612, 186 N.W.2d 800 (1971), People v. Macklin, 46 Mich.App. 297, 208 N.W.2d 62 The evidence produced by the prosecution in the present case was more than ......
-
People v. Mitchell
...for this purpose. Brownell v. People, 38 Mich. 732 (1878); People v. Durham, 170 Mich. 598, 136 N.W. 431 (1912); People v. Griner, 30 Mich.App. 612, 186 N.W.2d 800 (1971). 10 Likewise, the Brownell Court excluded evidence of defendant's act of violence upon another person at a different tim......
-
People v. Coppernol
...the admissibility is not affected by the Miranda decision. People v. Moore, 51 Mich.App. 48, 214 N.W.2d 548 (1974); People v. Griner, 30 Mich.App. 612, 186 N.W.2d 800 (1971). The officer's question as to whether or not his brother was armed was not aimed at building a case against the defen......