People v. Hampton

• Decision Date: 24 March 1977
• Docket Number: Docket No. 26847
• Citation: 280 N.W.2d 461,89 Mich.App. 434
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robin HAMPTON, Defendant-Appellant. 89 Mich.App. 434, 280 N.W.2d 461
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 461

280 N.W.2d 461

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robin HAMPTON, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 26847.

89 Mich.App. 434, 280 N.W.2d 461

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

March 24, 1977.

Released for Publication July 12, 1979.

[89 MICHAPP 435] Raymond E. Willis and Tony L. Axam, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Patricia J. Boyle, App. Chief, Asst. Pros. Atty. (no longer with prosecutors office), Maurie Corrigan, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before KAUFMAN, P. J. and V. J. BRENNAN and O'HARA, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a verdict by a jury in Wayne County Circuit Court convicting him of felonious assault, in violation of M.C.L.A. § 750.82; M.S.A. § 28.277. Counsel for the defendant have strongly contended in this appeal that the case has numerous errors entitling defendant to reversal. We are of the view that one issue is dispositive and, therefore, reverse.

Though we reverse, our disposition herein cannot be satisfactorily understood without reference to the posture of events below. Defendant has now faced trial on this same charge on four occasions. All four trials occurred during a three-month period. The first three trials resulted in hung juries. In the instant trial, the jury deliberated four days before rendering its verdict.

Throughout the course of these proceedings, defendant[89 MICHAPP 436] has been represented by the Legal Defenders Office. At the time of the fourth trial, the attorney who had represented defendant in the first three trials was unable to participate. An adjournment was requested to allow time for the original attorney to handle the fourth trial. The motion was denied. As a result, new counsel from the defender's office was brought in to handle the trial.

Prior to the fourth trial, defendant's new counsel requested the trial transcripts of the first and third trials. This was sought despite the fact that the defendant had been previously provided with copies of the preliminary examination and second trial transcript. His request was premised upon People v. Glass, 38 Mich.App. 735, 197 N.W.2d 140 (1972). At the time of this request he stated:

"I would submit to the Court that perhaps discovery is not the main thrust in this motion, it is impeachment. You have a situation where you have two eye witnesses, and at the time of the trial they decide to bring in the second eye witness, considering the witness was going to testify to the modus operandi of my client. I submit the impeachment is of the utmost importance. That is what the case is all about, eye witness testimony. If ever there was a situation where impeachment possibility is available, it should be made available. You have a long trial, and you get mixed up with a secondary issue, and in this case eye witness identification. That is what we need it for."

The trial judge reached a result contrary to defendant's position on the basis of essentially the following facts:

"This case was a short trial. It was a comparatively simple trial. We have the examination testimony, you have the complete transcript of the second trial, requested[89 MICHAPP 437] by the defendant, and adjournment was granted for that purpose. The third trial again repeated that which was in the second trial."

Again, as in the court below, defendant contends that the trial judge's denial of the transcripts was error. We agree.

In Glass, the Court held that an indigent criminal defendant was entitled to a transcript of his first trial at state expense prior to a new trial, even though he was represented by the same lawyer at both trials. In reaching this result, Judge, now Justice, Levin quoted approvingly the following language from Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 228, 92 S.Ct. 431, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971):

" 'We agree with the dissenters that there would be serious doubts about the decision below if it rested on petitioner's failure to specify how the transcript might have been useful to him. Our cases have consistently recognized the value to a defendant of a transcript of prior proceedings, without requiring a showing of need tailored to the facts of the particular case. As Mr. Justice Douglas makes clear, even in the absence of specific allegations It can ordinarily be assumed that a transcript of a prior mistrial would be valuable to the defendant in at least two ways: as a discovery device in preparation for trial,...