People v. Hoffmeister

Decision Date26 March 1974
Docket NumberNo. 2,Docket No. 14490,2
Citation52 Mich.App. 219,217 N.W.2d 58
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Byron Lee HOFFMEISTER, Defendant-Appellant
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Robert P. Dank, Mt. Clemens, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Thomas J. Kizer, Jr., Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before LESINSKI, C.J., and HOLBROOK and BASHARA, JJ.

BASHARA, Judge.

Defendant, Byron Lee Hoffmeister, was convicted by a jury in Livingston County Circuit Court of murder in the first degree. M.C.L.A. § 750.316; M.S.A. § 28.548. He was sentenced on April 18, 1972 to life imprisonment, with the recommendation that the first five years be spent in solitary confinement. Defendant appeals raising eight issues of which only five merit discussion.

Defendant first argues that the arrest warrant in this case was unconstitutionally issued, having been based on a conclusory complaint. If the arrest was made solely on the authority of the warrant, and assuming that it was defective, the defendant's argument might be persuasive for reversing his conviction. The fact is, however, that an officer may arrest without a warrant pursuant to M.C.L.A. § 764.15; M.S.A. § 28.874 which provides:

'Any peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person * * * (c) When a felony in fact has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe that such person has committed it; (d) When he has reasonable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and reasonable cause to believe that such person has committed it'.

A review of the record discloses that the arresting officer had reasonable cause to arrest defendant as required by the statute. It would be anomalous to now hold that an officer who had reasonable cause to arrest without a warrant forfeits that right because he was conscientious in obtaining a warrant that was later found to be defective. People v. Hernandez, 41 Mich.App. 594, 200 N.W.2d 447 (1972).

Defendant contends that the court's recommendation that defendant spend the first five years of his sentence in solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment. The recommendation was within the scope of the statute, M.C.L.A. § 750.316; M.S.A. § 28.548, and this Court has supported the questioned statute, People v. Gunn, 34 Mich.App. 106, 190 N.W.2d 793 (1971). If a change is to be made it is a matter for the Legislature.

Defendant next asserts that the failure of the judge to ask the requested voir dire questions was error, and the defendant was prejudiced thereby. The extent of allowable voir dire is largely a matter of judicial discretion as to manner and scope. People v. Simpson, 5 Mich.App. 479, 146 N.W.2d 828 (1966); People v. Brown, 46 Mich.App. 592, 208 N.W.2d 590 (1973). The trial judge, however, must not so limit the voir dire as to exclude an adequate showing of facts to give defense counsel grounds to challenge potential jurors both peremptorily or for cause. Fedorinchik v. Stewart, 289 Mich. 436, 286 N.W. 673 (1939); 2 Honigman and Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d Ed.), p. 465. The trial judge in the present case refused to allow 12 of defendant's 42 proposed voir dire questions. An examination of the record reveals that similar questions were asked by the trial judge, the prosecution, and the defense. The rule in Michigan has been that the trial judge does not have to allow a voir dire question to be asked in the precise language in which it was submitted by counsel. As such, defendant's rights were not prejudiced.

Defen...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • People v. Tyburski
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • July 19, 1994
    ...when he fails to ask specific questions requested by a defendant but does cover the area in another manner"); People v. Hoffmeister, 52 Mich.App. 219, 222, 217 N.W.2d 58 (1974), rev'd on other grounds, 394 Mich. 155, 229 N.W.2d 305 (1975) (the trial judge refused to allow twelve of defendan......
  • People v. McIntosh
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • July 21, 1975
    ...not in the precise language requested by defense counsel and not addressed to the panel members individually. People v. Hoffmeister, 52 Mich.App. 219, 217 N.W.2d 58 (1974). With thirty-two peremptory challenges left, defense counsel declined either to exercise challenges or express approval......
  • Robinson v. Emmet County Road Commission
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • December 9, 1976
    ... ... The litigation arose after a tragic automobile accident which took the lives of [72 Mich.App. 628] two young people. Plaintiff maintains that defendant's negligent maintenance of the highway where the accident occurred caused the accident. Defendant maintains ... ...
  • People v. Osborn
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • August 27, 1975
    ...v. White, 54 Mich.App. 342, 220 N.W.2d 789 (1974), People v. Bradley, 54 Mich.App. 89, 220 N.W.2d 305 (1974), People v. Hoffmeister, 52 Mich.App. 219, 217 N.W.2d 58 (1974), Rev'd on other grounds 394 Mich. 155, 229 N.W.2d 305 (1975). 1 The fact that the trial court furnished a form which di......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT