People v. Henley
| Decision Date | 20 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 110,No. 1,110,1 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. G. T. HENLEY, Defendant-Appellant. Cal |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Jesse E. Williams, Heading, Williams, Fonville & Floyd, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C. J., and FITZGERALD and GILLIS, JJ.
The defendant G. T. Henley was arraigned on a warrant June 20, 1963 containing two counts: 1) assault with intent to commit rape (C.L.S.1961, § 750.85 [Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.280]), and 2) attempt to procure an act of gross indecency between male and female persons (C.L.S.1961, § 750.338b [Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.570(2)]). An attorney was assigned by the court to represent the was assigned by an examination was conducted in recorder's court on July 11, 1963. The examining magistrate, Judge Elvin L. Davenport, ordered the prosecuting attorney to file a petition for a sanity hearing pursuant to C.L.S.1961, § 767.27 (Stat.Ann.1963 Cum.Supp. § 28.967). Three physicians examined the defendant and reported to the court on August 7, 1963 that he was not psychotic, was free from mental defect, able to understand the charges pending against him and able to assist counsel in his defense. On October 24, 1963 defendant advised the court that he desired to engage his own counsel, did not want assigned counsel and the court permitted assigned counsel to withdraw from the case. Several adjournments of the case were granted in order that defendant might retain counsel.
On December 9, 1963 the defendant, not having hired counsel, was offered another assigned counsel by the then presiding judge of the recorder's court but the defendant refused to sign the required affidavit and petition for appointment of counsel. Three days later Judge John P. Scallen assigned an attorney to represent the defendant. On the following day trial commenced. A mistrial was declared in the early stages of that trial and the assigned counsel was permitted to withdraw from the case after defendant requested that he be discharged. Judge Scallen then appointed a new sanity commission consisting of three additional physicians who reported on January 8, 1964 the same findings reported by the prior sanity commission. On December 24, 1963 another attorney was retained by the defendant and this attorney remained with the defendant throughout the balance of the proceedings in this cause. This trial attorney, having received only a small retainer initially, was appointed and compensated as an assigned counsel.
A new trial was commenced on May 27, 1964 and on June 4, 1964 the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts set forth in the information. The lengthy transcript covering this trial is replete with attempts by the defendant to dominate the court proceedings. The record clearly shows that the defendant continually interrupted the trial judge, insisted on instructing his counsel in so loud a tone that it could be heard by members of the jury in the court, interrupted the testimony of various witnesses, conducted oratorical speeches directed to the jury protesting his innocence and insisted that he was being deprived of his constitutional rights. At other times he would direct remarks to the spectators sitting in the rear of the courtroom contending that his rights were being violated and requested someone in the audience to send news reporters or representatives of various organizations to see him. After one court recess, the defendant while in a jail cell adjacent to the courtroom removed all of his clothing and refused to come out for further proceedings.
It was thereafter necessary for the court to order the defendant forcefully clothed and brought into the courtroom where he was shackled to a chair. This action by the trial court seemed only to intensify the contemptuous attitude displayed by the defendant. The trial judge, who displayed the patience of Job, 1 did everything possible throughout the trial to control the defendant's actions except to order defendant gagged. See People v. LaMarr (1965), 1 Mich.App. 389, 136 N.W.2d 708, and citations contained therein for authority of the court to shackle a defendant.
The conduct of the defendant may well have prejudiced the jury but this defendant cannot complain inasmuch as he cannot claim the benefit of error that he himself occasioned.
After the trial was well under way, the defendant advised the court that he had '...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Shaw, 9
...done as a precautionary measure to prevent another escape by the defendant who had once escaped from prison. In People v. Henley (1965), 2 Mich.App. 54, 57, 58, 138 N.W.2d 505, also noted by the Court of Appeals, the trial judge was obliged to have the defendant forcefully clothed and broug......
-
People v. Henley, Docket No. 110
...and for a judicial determination thereof.' People v. Henley (1969), 382 Mich. 143, 150, 169 N.W.2d 299, 303, Reversing (1965), 2 Mich.App. 54, 138 N.W.2d 505. The question presented is whether the defense of double jeopardy was available as a bar to the retrial of defendant Henley, after hi......
-
People v. Henley
...Before the Entire Bench. BLACK, Judge. We adopt the factual review which Judge Gillis prepared for Division I (People v. Henley, 2 Mich.App. 54, 55--58, 138 N.W.2d 505, 506). The review 'The defendant G. T. Henley was arraigned on a warrant June 20, 1963 containing two counts: (1) assault w......
-
People v. Reynold
...to shackle a defendant. Although this defendant cannot now claim the benefit of error he himself occasioned, see People v. Henley (1965), 2 Mich.App. 54, 58, 138 N.W.2d 505, reversed on other grounds 382 Mich, 143, 169 N.W.2d 299, a review of the record fails to substantiate defendant's con......