People v. Hearndon

• Decision Date: 23 February 1971
• Docket Number: No. 1,Docket No. 8208,1
• Citation: 31 Mich.App. 113,187 N.W.2d 557
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert HEARNDON, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 557

187 N.W.2d 557

31 Mich.App. 113

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Albert HEARNDON, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 8208.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

Feb. 23, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 29, 1971.

Released for Publication June 9, 1971.

Eddie D. Smith, 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., Leonard Meyers, Asst. Pros.Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and J. H. GILLIS and JEANNETTE, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of rape, M.C.L.A. § 750.520(Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.788), and sentenced to 15 to 20 years in prison.

The complainant, Mrs. Annie Sanders, alleged that on September 20, 1967, between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m., she was awakened by a man in her bedroom who was choking her and threatening her to remain silent.She was forced to have sexual intercourse with her assailant.She called the police as soon as her assailant was gone and was taken to a hospital for examination.

On or about November 5, 1967, officer Richard Waldis of the Detroit police department talked to complainant and showed her some mug shots at her home, whereupon she made a preliminary identification of her assailant.Thereafter, on November 14, 1967, a lineup was conducted at police headquarters, at which time complainant identified defendant as her assailant.

On appeal defendant contends that the identification process was so prejudicial as to taint the subsequent in-court identification and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

At the preliminary examination complainant identified defendant but showed considerable hesitation about the accuracy of the identification.She was certain that defendnat was the man she had identified from the police photographs but much less certain that he was the person who had raped her.At trial, when confronted with the testimony from the preliminary hearing, complainant stated that while she was uncertain at that time, she was now positive of her identification.

A review of the record discloses no identification procedures which taint the incourt identification.There is sufficient evidence, if believed by the jury, to justify a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.People v. Thomas(1967), 7 Mich.App. 519, 152 N.W.2d 166;People v. Weems(1969), 19 Mich.App. 553, 172 N.W.2d 865.

In further support of his arguments concerning identification, defendant includes two affidavits detailing an alleged conversation between complainant and another woman in the corridor outside the courtroom.Both women had been victims of rapes and both agreed that they did not know who had...