People v. Jennings

• Decision Date: 07 October 1982
• Docket Number: No. 59174,59174
• Citation: 118 Mich.App. 318,324 N.W.2d 625
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael JENNINGS, a/k/a William Michael Jennings, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 625

324 N.W.2d 625

118 Mich.App. 318

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael JENNINGS, a/k/a William Michael Jennings, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 59174.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 4, 1982.

Decided July 20, 1982.

Released for Publication Oct. 7, 1982.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., George N. Parris, Pros. Atty., Don L. Milbourn, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Asst. Pros. Atty., and Alice F. Sage, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the people.

Elbert L. Hatchett, Pontiac, for defendant-appellant.

Before DANHOF, C. J., and BEASLEY and SWALLOW, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On October 17, 1980, defendant, Michael Jennings, also known as William Michael Jennings, was convicted by a jury, as charged, of armed robbery, in violation of M.C.L. Sec. 750.529; M.S.A. Sec. 28.797. After being sentenced to not less than five years nor more than 20 years in prison, defendant appeals as of right.

The conviction arises from an incident at a St. Clair Shores grocery store on the evening of March 22, 1980, where the proprietor and his sole employee, while in the process of closing the establishment, were confronted by two masked men, one of whom was carrying a stick. The proprietor's employee, who was at the cash register, was approached by the taller of the two men. As she attempted to escape from him, the man smashed a green colored glass bottle on her head. Thereupon, her assailant removed all of the money contained in the cash register and fled from the building.

Investigation revealed that defendant's fingerprints were on the broken glass bottle. Subsequently, a warrant was issued and defendant was arrested and charged with armed robbery.

Prior to trial, an evidentiary hearing was conducted on defense counsel's motion to suppress the glass bottle from evidence. At the hearing, the complaint identified a green "Atlas sugar-free, lemon-lime, at least 10 ounces" bottle as the article by which she was struck. She further testified that the pieces of the broken bottle were swept up and placed in a jar on the day succeeding the assault and that, on the following day, the evidence was given to Detective Philip Kidder of the St. Clair Shores Police Department.

Although not able to identify defendant as her masked assailant, the complainant testified that she had seen defendant in the store on several occasions. On direct examination, she unequivocally stated that defendant was not the customer who returned the green Atlas bottle to the store.

Also testifying at the evidentiary hearing was Detective Kidder, who was assigned to investigate the case on the Monday morning following the Saturday evening robbery. He recounted appearing at the grocery store to obtain the broken glass bottle from complainant and immediately thereafter delivering the bottle to the State Police Crime Laboratory.

On cross-examination, Detective Kidder admitted that the procedure employed in the investigation of this robbery deviated from the St. Clair Shores Police Department's normal procedure, as usually a detective would have photographed and collected the evidence on the morning subsequent to the commission of a major crime.

In denying defendant's motion to suppress the weapon from admission into evidence, the trial court stated:

"THE COURT: The testimony is quite clear from Mrs. Lower that she was struck over the head with a bottle. It was an Atlas bottle, lemon-lime, and she put the pieces in a jawbreaker jar and put them in a trash can liner and subsequently retrieved them and gave them to the police, and we have demonstrative evidence, it's either a lemon-lime bottle or it isn't a lemon-lime bottle that's in the jawbreaker container.

"The Court will deny your motion to suppress and quash the information."

On appeal, defendant maintains that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the glass bottle into evidence. Particularly, defendant contends that the trial court erred because of the police department's deviation from its normal procedure of preserving evidence and the tenuous connection of the evidence to the within case.

In his treatise on evidence, Professor McCormick provides the following guidance: ¹

"Again, demonstrative evidence may be classified as to whether the item offered did or did not play an actual and direct part in the incident or transaction giving rise to the trial. Objects offered as having played such a direct role, e.g., the alleged weapon in a murder prosecution, are commonly called 'real' or 'original' evidence and are to be distinguished from evidence which played no such part but is offered for illustrative or other purposes. It will be readily apparent that when real evidence is offered an adequate foundation for admission will require testimony first that the object offered is the object which was involved in the incident, and further that the condition of the object is substantially unchanged. If the offered item possesses characteristics which are fairly unique and readily identifiable, and if the substance of which the item is composed is relatively impervious to change, the trial court is viewed as having broad discretion to admit merely on the basis of testimony that the item is the one in question and is in a substantially unchanged condition." (Footnotes omitted.) (Emphasis in original.)

A break in the chain of custody of evidence does not require automatic exclusion of the proffered evidence. ² In order to obtain the admission of real evidence, a prosecutor must lay a foundation identifying the items as what they are purported to be and displaying that the items are connected with the accused or the crime. ³

In the within matter, the following facts are pertinent to an analysis of this issue: (1) the complainant categorically identified the broken glass bottle as the weapon used to inflict her injuries; (2) the identified bottle was an uncommon brand; (3) shortly prior to the assault,...