People v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 06 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | 62425,Docket Nos. 62210 |
| Citation | 125 Mich.App. 251,335 N.W.2d 673 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Humphrey JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant. 125 Mich.App. 251, 335 N.W.2d 673 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[125 MICHAPP 254] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Deputy Chief, Asst. Pros. Atty., and Jeffrey Caminsky, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
James A. Waske, Southfield, for John Henderson.
Gerald M. Lorence, Detroit, for Humphrey Jackson.
Before MAHER, P.J., and BRONSON and CYNAR, JJ.
Defendants Jackson and Henderson were charged along with a third person, Detreich Burris, with two counts of criminal sexual conduct (CSC) in the first degree. M.C.L. Sec. 750.520b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(2). Henderson was bound over on one count only. After a joint jury trial with Henderson, Jackson was convicted of one count of first-degree CSC and one count of third-degree CSC and sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 4 to 15 years for each count. Henderson was convicted of first-degree CSC and sentenced to a prison term of 18 months to five years. Both defendants appeal as of right, and their appeals have been consolidated.
Kim Lewis, the complainant, testified that on July 18, 1981, at about 3 a.m. two men in a car pulled up and asked her if she needed a ride while she was walking to catch a bus. After she refused [125 MICHAPP 255] the offer, the driver, Detreich Burris, grabbed her and forced her into the car in which Jackson was a passenger. Lewis testified that the men drove her to an apartment and that Burris took her by the arm from the car into the apartment. She tried to escape but was forced by Burris to undress and submit to sexual acts with him and Jackson. Burris took her clothes and locked them in a room.
Lewis testified that after this she tried to escape out a window but, once on the roof, found that the only exit was through another open window. Clothed only in a housecoat, she entered the window and woke defendant Henderson, who was sleeping in the room, and asked him for help. He told Burris and Jackson, who were knocking and pushing on his door, that Lewis was not in his room. Burris pushed his way into the room and forced Lewis back to his room. She was forced to submit to further sexual acts with all three men and then to take a bath. Burris left the apartment to go to the store and to make a telephone call. He took the key to the room in which Lewis's clothes were locked. Lewis, again, clothed only in a housecoat, managed to climb out a window which overlooked the main street and onto a sign which hung next to the window and yell for help until a passing Detroit police patrol car stopped. After talking with defendants, who had remained in the apartment, and Lewis, the officers placed defendants under arrest. Burris was not at the apartment when the police arrived and has apparently fled the jurisdiction.
During the direct examination of Lewis, the prosecutor referred to Burris as "the man who's not here". Neither defense counsel objected to this characterization. Prior to his closing argument and outside the presence of the jury, the prosecutor [125 MICHAPP 256] moved for a jury instruction on flight in regard to Burris. Upon objection by counsel for Jackson, the trial judge denied the request. The trial court did, however, rule that the prosecutor could draw and argue rational inferences from the evidence. The prosecutor had already referred to the fact that Burris had never been found while summing up his opening statement.
In his closing argument, counsel for Henderson argued that there were serious flaws in the case as presented by the prosecution including the fact that Henderson had not fled when the police arrived. In his rebuttal argument, the prosecution responded to the Henderson argument and again referred to Barris's flight.
Now, on appeal, defendant Jackson argues that the multiple references to Burris's flight caused reversible error. We disagree. In this case the references to "the man who's not here" were necessary to avoid confusion and were used as an aid to help the complainant keep her testimony in order. Further, Burris' flight is so closely connected with the transaction as to be admissible as res gestae.
"It cannot be shown, as against accused on trial, that an accomplice or a co-conspirator has fled or escaped since the commission of the crime, except when so closely connected with the transaction as to be admissible as res gestae, * * * or where both accused and his codefendant made their escape and fled at the same time." (Emphasis added.) (Footnotes omitted.) 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law, Sec. 767(g), p. 1152.
An examination of the facts and the courts' analyses in the cases cited under Sec. 767(g) leads us to conclude that the res gestae exception to the general prohibition of the admission of evidence of [125 MICHAPP 257] flight of a codefendant against another is rather narrow. In one case, evidence of an attempted escape by a codefendant which occurred immediately after the shooting of a police officer was held to be part of the res gestae of the crime. 1 We note, however, that both defendants had fled. In another case, the flight of the coconspirator occurred while the conspiracy to rob was still in progress. 2 We conclude that our case fits within the exception. Although the physical attacks on Lewis with which defendants were charged had ceased, the force which is an element of these forms of CSC still existed. The evidence indicates that Lewis was still under the control of Burris and the defendants. When Burris left to make a telephone call, he took the key to the room within which Lewis's clothes were locked. Further, Lewis was able to escape defendants only by risking her safety by climbing through a window. Even if we believed the prosecutor put too much emphasis on Burris's flight, we would find no reversible error.
We also find no reversible error in defendant Jackson's second argument. Unlike the case of People v. Erb, 48 Mich.App. 622, 211 N.W.2d 51 (1973), the prosecutor did not attempt to vouch for the complainant's veracity based on the prestige of his office. The prosecutor merely stated his belief that the complainant had no motive to fabricate, that she was entitled to be believed and that the evidence in the case supported her testimony. Neither defense counsel objected to the prosecutor's statements. Further, both defense counsel expressed their disbelief in the complainant's testimony during their closing arguments.
We also reject defendant Henderson's allegations[125 MICHAPP 258] of ineffective assistance of counsel. Review of the closing argument of Henderson's attorney reveals that the contention that defense counsel failed to argue permissible...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ross
...can only be raised by a motion for new trial. People v. Powers, 272 Mich. 303, 310, 261 N.W. 543 (1935); People v. Jackson, 125 Mich.App. 251, 258, 335 N.W.2d 673 (1983). An appellate court will reverse on this issue only where there has been an abuse of discretion in denying the motion for......
-
State v. Winston
...Criminal Law § 767(g), supra. This exception was recently recognized by the Michigan Court of Appeals in People v. Jackson, 625 Mich.App. 251, 335 N.W.2d 673 (Mich.Ct.App.1983). Jackson, like the instant case involved a sexual assault. Two men were tried and convicted. A third had fled befo......