People v. Higginbotham, Docket No. 6152
Decision Date | 04 February 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 6152,1 |
Citation | 175 N.W.2d 557,21 Mich.App. 489 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard HIGGINBOTHAM, Defendant-Appellant |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Armand D. Bove, 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., Thomas P. Smith, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and J. H. GILLIS and QUINN, JJ.
In the early morning of October 23, 1967, three officers of the Detroit Police Department were sent to investigate suspicious noises in a bar. According to the testimony at trial, two officers entered the front door of the bar and observed one man 'in the middle of the bar and two figures in the rear of the bar.' The first man, James Henderson, was shot after refusing to heed the officers' orders. Immediately thereafter defendant Richard Higginbotham was seen crawling out a broken rear door by an officer guarding the rear of the building. Defendant Higginbotham, James Henderson and Curtis Simpson were then arrested. After a joint jury trial, Higginbotham and Simpson were convicted of breaking and entering a business place with intent to commit larceny. 1
Defendant's first allegation of error concerns the trial testimony of one of the employees of the bar. A review of the record reveals the following testimony:
Defendant argues that this testimony violates the doctrine espoused in Bruton v. United States (1968), 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476. In Bruton, the Supreme Court reversed a conviction obtained after a postal inspector testified that he had obtained an oral confession from Bruton's co-defendant which specifically named Bruton. In this case, however, the co-defendant's statement did not directly implicate Higginbotham. This situation was discussed in United States v. Lipowitz (C.A. 3, 1969) 407 F.2d 597, 602, cert. den. sub. nom. Smith v. United States, 395 U.S. 946, 89 S.Ct. 2026, 23 L.Ed.2d 466:
There was no error.
Defendant's second argument is that he was denied adequate assistance of counsel. Our Supreme Court has recognized that there is often a difference of opinion between trial counsel and appellate counsel over trial tactics. People v. Martin (1920), 210 Mich. 139, 177 N.W. 193. Consequently, we have closely examined the record to determine whether we are presented with such a difference in opinion or with actual inadequate representation.
The transcript of trial testimony establishes that the requirements of adequate counsel were met. As we have said on several occasions, counsel that is 'only perfunctory, in bad faith, a sham, a pretense, or without adequate opportunity for conference and preparation' is not effective representation. People v. Wynn (1968), 14 Mich.App. 268, 269, 165 N.W.2d 493; People v. Davison (1968), 12 Mich.App. 429, 434, 163 N.W.2d 10; People v. Crawford (1969), 16 Mich.App. 92, 96, 167 N.W.2d 814. However, defendant's trial counsel cannot be so characterized. Effective representation does not mean successful representation. The trial attorney cross-examined witnesses, objected to the entering of exhibits and attempted to impress upon the jury the importance of their function. He was handicapped by the eyewitness testimony of the police officer who observed the defendant fleeing the closed bar at 6 a.m. Under the circumstances, counsel was more than adequate.
The final issue to be discussed is whether the affidavit of Henderson exonerating the defendant requires the granting of a new...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. O'Guin
...or without adequate opportunity for conference and preparation' then it is not effective representation. People v. Higginbotham (1970), 21 Mich.App. 489, 175 N.W.2d 557. No such showing is made here. Competence or effectiveness of counsel cannot be measured by number of witnesses cross-exam......
-
People v. Watkins, Docket Nos. 8938
...vigorously protecting the rights of all the defendants, that his counsel was inadequate under the rule of People v. Higginbotham (1970), 21 Mich.App. 489, 175 N.W.2d 557. His claim has even less merit than that of Higginbotham whose claim in this regard was there denied. He claims that inad......
-
People v. Logue
...v. Butler (1970), 27 Mich.App. 404, 183 N.W.2d 595; People v. Crawford (1969), 16 Mich.App. 92, 167 N.W.2d 814; People v. Higginbotham (1970), 21 Mich.App. 489, 175 N.W.2d 557. A review of the transcript in this case indicates that the trial was neither a farce nor a sham but that defense c......
-
People v. Mitten
...satisfy the criteria of newly discovered evidence. People v. Keiswetter, 7 Mich.App. 334, 151 N.W.2d 829 (1967); People v. Higginbotham, 21 Mich.App. 489, 175 N.W.2d 557 (1970). Assuming that such information was unavailable until the present, it fails to satisfy the requirement that the ev......