People v. Hatfield
| Decision Date | 29 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Docket No. 13006,3 |
| Citation | 207 N.W.2d 485,46 Mich.App. 149 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abslom Riley HATFIELD, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Herman A. Saitz, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and FITZGERALD and VanVALKENBURG *, JJ.
Defendant was charged and convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting in the commission of the breaking and entering a grocery store with intent to commit a larceny therein, M.C.L.A. § 750.110; M.S.A. § 28.305, M.C.L.A. § 767.39; M.S.A. § 28.979. Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 3 to 10 years and appeals as of right.
Basically, the theory of the prosecution was that defendant aided and abetted three teenagers, who carried out the actual robbery. The prosecutor endorsed and called two of the three accomplices. The third accomplice was not endorsed by the prosecutor until ordered to do so by the trial judge during trial; however, the third accomplice was never produced at trial. The theory of the defense was alibi.
Defendant, on appeal, filed an 81-page brief raising numerous errors, the most important of which included: (1) Whether the prosecutor has a duty to endorse and call and alleged eyewitness accomplice where he has endorsed and called two other eyewitness accomplices?; (2) Whether the prosecutor exercised due diligence in attempting to secure the third accomplice after being ordered by the trial court to endorse said person?; and (3) Whether the prosecutor's closing argument denied defendant his right to a fair trial? The prosecutor failed to respond in any manner to the allegations of error set forth in defendant's brief.
It should be noted that each of the above-noted allegations of error involve the question of whether defendant was prejudiced by some action or inaction on the part of the prosecutor. Defendant, in essence, asserts that the prosecutor failed to properly discharge his duty of insuring that defendant be assured a fair trial. The prosecutor's failure to respond to these allegations must be viewed by this Court as admissions that the complained-of prejudice does exist. People v. Walma, 26 Mich.App. 326, 182 N.W.2d 110 (1970).
Despite the fact that this Court in Walma placed the prosecutors on notice that their failure to respond to defendants' allegations would be treated as admissions that such allegations were true, this Court has continued to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jackson
...125, sets forth the former state of the law.7 People v. Downs, 45 Mich.App. 130, 133, 206 N.W.2d 241 (1973); People v. Hatfield, 46 Mich.App. 149, 151, 207 N.W.2d 485 (1973); People v. Johnson, 46 Mich.App. 212, 220, 207 N.W.2d 914 (1973); People v. Osteen, 46 Mich.App. 409, 419, 208 N.W.2d......
-
People v. Smith
...attorneys is directed to the opinions issued in People v. Walma, 26 Mich.App. 326, 182 N.W.2d 110 (1970), and People v. Hatfield, 46 Mich.App. 149, 207 N.W.2d 485 (1973). ...
-
People v. Killebrew
...in subsequent Michigan Court of Appeals decisions: People v. Sanders, 43 Mich.App. 698, 204 N.W.2d 706 (1972), People v. Hatfield, 46 Mich.App. 149, 207 N.W.2d 485 (1973), People v. Johnson, 46 Mich.App. 212, 207 N.W.2d 914 (1973), People v. Osteen, 46 Mich.App. 409, 208 N.W.2d 198 (1973), ......
-
People v. Lemanski
...v. Swan, 56 Mich.App. 22, 223 N.W.2d 346 (1974). People v. Miller, 49 Mich.App. 53, 211 N.W.2d 242 (1973), and People v. Hatfield, 46 Mich.App. 149, 207 N.W.2d 485 (1973), have no application to the case at bar, since the late filing of a brief does not constitute an admission. Defendant's ......