People v. Herrell, 211
| Decision Date | 15 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 211,No. 1,211,1 |
| Citation | 137 N.W.2d 755,1 Mich.App. 666 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glen Dee HERRELL, Defendant-Appellant. Cal |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Casey K. Ambrose, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty. of Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C. J., and FITZGERALD and GILLIS, JJ.
Defendant Glen Dee Herrell was tried and convicted by a jury in the recorder's court--traffic and ordinance division for the city of Detroit for the crime of leaving the scene of a fatal accident, contrary to C.L.S.1961, § 257.617 (Stat.Ann.1960 Rev. § 9.2317). The accident occurred on February 16, 1963.
Defendant appeals alleging the trial court committed reversible error in admitting into evidence, over objection, a photograph entitled the people's exhibit 7.
During the course of the trial a Detroit police officer testified that exhibit 7 was a photograph that he had taken of the defendant's car showing the right rear corner with a yardstick alongside and with the taillight removed. The officer further testified that the yardstick was placed in such a position so as to indicate the distance between the damage and the ground, and that in order to place the yardstick in such position he had to bend the molding on the fender. He further explained that he removed the taillight in order to check for paint particles but was unable to replace it before taking the photograph.
Defendant objected to the introduction into evidence of the photograph on the grounds that it did not truly represent the automobile as it was found by the officer. The court admitted the exhibit into evidence, ruling that with the officer's explanation of the variance, the jury was properly informed and able to understand the changes represented in the photograph.
The general rule is well stated in Pruner v. Detroit United Railway (1912), 173 Mich. 146, 151, 139 N.W. 48, quoted with approval in Perri v. Tassie (1940), 293 Mich. 464, 473, 292 N.W. 370, 371:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Turner, Docket No. 2160
...People v. Becker, Supra; 2) because they do not adequately represent the person, place or thing photographed, see People v. Herrell (1965), 1 Mich.App. 666, 137 N.W.2d 755; or 3) because they are calculated to inflame the minds of the jurors, see People v. Burns (1952), 109 Cal.App.2d 524, ......
-
People v. Doane, Docket No. 9896
...or opened in order to expose the marijuana) and the house as photographed were fully explained to the jury. See People v. Herrell (1965), 1 Mich.App. 666, 137 N.W.2d 755. As the photographs in question were not open to objection under the test set forth in People v. Krogol (1970), 29 Mich.A......
-
Robinson, Matter of
...changes in the condition of the scene or person where a person testifies as to the extent of the changes. Id.; People v. Herrell, 1 Mich.App. 666, 668, 137 N.W.2d 755 (1965). The medical examiner, VanAndel, testified that the photographs did not represent what he saw when he examined the bo......
-
People v. Brannon
...People v. Becker, Supra; 2) because they do not adequately represent the person, place or thing photographed, see People v. Herrell (1965), 1 Mich.App. 666, 137 N.W.2d 755; or 3) because they are calculated to inflame the minds of the jurors, see People v. Burns (1952), 109 Cal.App.2d 524, ......