People v. Iaconnelli
| Decision Date | 31 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 27139-27141,27151,27192 and 30663,27191 |
| Citation | 112 Mich.App. 725,317 N.W.2d 540 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guido IACONNELLI, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Morris BIVINS, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold TURNER, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert MITCHELL and Richard Herold, Defendants-Appellants. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rudy DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erskine HASLIP, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Principal Atty., Asst. Pros. Atty., Appeals, and Robert J. Sheiko, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
John C. Mouradian, Detroit, for defendants-appellants Iaconnelli and Bivins.
James H. Grant, Detroit, for defendant-appellant Harold Davis.
Ramsdell, Oade & Feldman, Southfield, for defendants-appellants Turner and Mitchell.
Norman L. Lippitt, Southfield, for defendant-appellant Herold.
Robert S. Harrison, Southfield, for defendant-appellant Rudy Davis.
Lawrence W. Rattner, Detroit, for defendant-appellant Haslip.
Before J. H. GILLIS, P. J., and BASHARA and SANBORN, * JJ.
Defendants appeal by right from their jury convictions in Detroit Recorder's Court on December 20, 1975.
Defendants Robert Mitchell, Richard Herold, Rudy Davis, Morris Bivins, Erskine Haslip, Guido Iaconnelli, Harold Turner and Harold Davis were charged in a two-count indictment.
The first count charged all but Haslip with conspiracy to sell, manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to deliver narcotic drugs to one another and various other persons pursuant to M.C.L. Sec. 750.157a; M.S.A. Sec. 28.354(1), 1952 P.A. 266, Sec. 2 (), and 1971 P.A. 196 ().
The second count charged all of the above-named defendants except Guido Iaconnelli and Harold Davis with conspiracy to obstruct justice by wilfully and unlawfully bribing, assaulting, kidnapping, attempting to murder, murdering, dissuading and hindering the arrest of persons for narcotics violations, and various other crimes pursuant to M.C.L. 750.157a; M.S.A. Sec. 28.354(1), M.C.L. Sec. 750.505; M.S.A. Sec. 28.773, 1952 P.A. 266, Sec. 2, and 1971 P.A. 196.
In addition to the above-named defendants, eight others were named as codefendants. Robert Neely, Willie Peeples, Charlie Brown, Carlos Gonzales, and Richard Kendricks were charged in Count I, and codefendants William Stackhouse, Daniel O'Mara, Willie Peeples, Charlie Brown, David Slater, Carlos Gonzales and Richard Kendricks were charged in Count II.
In Count I, the following persons were named as coconspirators but not as defendants: Erskine Haslip, James Moody, Chester Campbell, George Hall, George Dudley, Ward Washington, Herbert Pittman, and George Reed. In Count II, the following persons were named as coconspirators but not as defendants: George Dudley, Milton Battle, Wiley Reed, Roy McNeal, Haywood LeRoy Sampson, Olivia Sampson, Peaches Miles, Larry McNeal, Anna Marie McNeal, Alice Bailey, Chester Lee McNeal, and Harold Jackson.
The conspiracies were alleged to have taken place over a five-year period from January 1, 1968, to January 1, 1973, and were alleged to have taken place in Detroit and at various specific addresses in Farmington, Michigan, and in the cities of New York, Chicago, Illinois, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Nashville, Tennessee, Birmingham, Alabama, Miami, Florida, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, and various other locations.
In anticipation of a trial that would last several months, a jury of 20 persons was sworn on June 30, 1975, and the trial proceeded. All of the above-named defendants were tried jointly by the jury except defendant Kendricks, who was tried in the same proceeding in a nonjury trial.
On December 20, 1975, the jury returned verdicts as to those defendants who are the subjects of this consolidated appeal as follows: Robert Mitchell, guilty on both counts; Richard Herold, not guilty on Count I, but guilty on Count II; Rudy Davis, not guilty on Count I, but guilty on Count II; Morris Bivins, guilty on Count I (Count II was dismissed by the trial court at the close of the prosecution's case by grant of Bivins' motion for directed verdict); Erskine Haslip, guilty on Count II (not charged on Count I); Guido Iaconnelli, guilty on Count I (not charged on Count II); Harold Turner, guilty on Count I, but not guilty on Count II; Harold Davis, guilty on Count I (not charged on Count II). The other defendants were acquitted.
The trial judge imposed the following sentences: Rudy Davis, from 3 years and 4 months to 5 years in prison plus a $10,000 fine; Robert Mitchell, from 13 years and 4 months to 20 years plus a $10,000 fine on Count I and from 3 years and 4 months to 5 years plus a $10,000 fine on Count II; Richard Herold, from 3 years and 4 months to 5 years plus a $10,000 fine; Morris Bivins, from 13 years and 4 months to 20 years plus a $5,000 fine and $10,000 costs; Erskine Haslip, from 2 to 5 years plus a fine of $2,500 and costs of $5,000; Guido Iaconnelli, from 13 years and 4 months to 20 years in prison plus a $5,000 fine and $10,000 in court costs; Harold Turner, from 8 to 20 years in prison plus $10,000 in court costs; Harold Davis, from 10 to 20 years in prison plus a $5,000 fine and costs to be determined.
Defendants appeal as of right.
It was the people's theory of the case that under Count I, the civilian defendants (as opposed to those defendants who were police officers) conspired to traffic in narcotics, participating in the conspiracy as dealers, deliverers, operators of narcotics establishments, and operators of legitimate businesses using their businesses to pass through money made in the narcotics business and various other items, while those defendants who were police officers counselled, aided and planned the setting up of narcotics establishments, aided the civilian traffickers by tipping them off when raids were to take place (in return for money), by working with those traffickers to raid rival narcotics operators to secure money and narcotics and subsequently recycling the narcotics so obtained through friendly operators, and by taking money to allow friendly operators to remain unmolested while raiding their competition. The people theorized that favored drug operations in Detroit's 10th precinct operated under ground rules set by the corrupt police, such as not to sell to children and only to operate during certain hours.
The people's theory under Count II was that the defendants conspired to obstruct justice through the commission of numerous crimes in support of the conspiracy to traffic in narcotics, as alleged in Count I.
The people further allege that the object of the conspiracies was to share in the "huge profits" derived from the narcotics business within Detroit's 10th precinct.
It was the theory of the defendant police officers (including appellants Rudy Davis, Robert Mitchell, and Richard Herold) that they were scapegoats and victims of a scheme by the prosecution and high-level police officials who sought to indict and convict the defendants because of political ambition and in order to show success against the extensive illegal drug trafficking in Detroit. It was the defendant police officers' contention that they in fact were operating in the course of their duties during the alleged conspiracy and that the case against them was fabricated by the prosecution and officials in the police department.
It was the theory of defendants Bivins, Haslip, and Turner that the testimony against them was fabricated and that the witnesses against them were inherently unreliable. Defendant Iaconnelli contended that he had never participated in the narcotics business and was not involved in any illegal activity. He admitted to having met Milton Battle, and that he knew him socially, but claimed that he was never aware of Battle's illegal activity.
The indictment was amended during the course of the trial, and the amended indictment was read as part of the jury charge after the close of proofs. Willie Peeples, Carlos Gonzales, and Charlie Brown were dropped from Count I of the indictment, and a total of 27 persons were named as unindicted coconspirators in Count I. The dates of the conspiracy charged in Count I were amended to cover a period of from November 1, 1969, to January 1, 1973, and Windsor, Ontario, was dropped as an alleged location of the Count I conspiracy. Morris Bivins and Richard Kendricks were dropped from Count II of the indictment. The dates of the conspiracy alleged in Count II were amended to cover a period of from January 1, 1970, to January 1, 1973, and the location of the Count II conspiracy was ultimately limited to the City of Detroit.
On appeal all defendants claim that they are entitled to a new trial because the prosecution engaged in a deliberate course of misconduct designed to convict them regardless of their guilt. The prosecution responds to this claim by alleging that defendants, knowing that they were guilty, had no other viable defense, and so attempted to "build" a case of prosecutorial misconduct into the trial by raising as many objections as possible on that ground, even though such objections were meritless.
This issue, in the context of a lengthy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Schmidt, Docket No. 118060
...This Court then noted that the defendant was not denied an opportunity to offer any material evidence. In People v. Iaconnelli, 112 Mich.App. 725, 759, 317 N.W.2d 540 (1982), lv. den. sub. nom. People v. Haslip, 417 Mich. 1045 (1983), this Court noted the holding in Watkins but went on to s......
-
Jones v. Burt
...had the same attorney as the defendant, regarding defense strategies before he became a prosecution witness. People v. Iaconnelli, 112 Mich. App. 725, 737 (1982).Therefore, we conclude that Michigan courts favor requiring a finding of prejudice before an intentional governmental intrusion w......
-
Mitchell v. Ravitz, 85-1029
...in the police department. Petitioner's conviction on both counts was affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals. People v. Iaconnelli, 112 Mich. App. 725, 317 N.W.2d 540 (1982). The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Haslip, 417 Mich. 1045 (1983). Petitioner then filed ......
-
People v. Fernandez
...it out himself rather than standing by so that the prosecutor can belabor it on cross-examination." Accord, People v. Iaconnelli, 112 Mich.App. 725, 776, 317 N.W.2d 540 (1982). The prosecution argues that Peabody and Iaconnelli were decided prior to the adoption of the new Michigan Rules of......