People v. June, Docket No. 9460
| Decision Date | 22 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 9460,2 |
| Citation | 34 Mich.App. 313,191 N.W.2d 52 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Merritt LaRue JUNE, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Carl L. Bekofske, Flint, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., John P. Spires, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before mcGREGOR, P.J., and BRONSON and O'HARA, * JJ.
On February 17, 1970, a jury in Lapeer County convicted the defendant on the charge of negligent homicide. 1
At approximately 9:00 a.m. on the morning of June 24, 1969, the defendant was involved in an accident near the intersection of highway M--24 and Dockham Road. Two eyewitnesses testified that defendant's car was traveling in the southbound lane of highway M--24 and rapidly came upon a white Chevrolet which was proceeding slowly in the same lane. Defendant swered abruptly into the northbound lane as if to avoid the white Chevrolet and struck a northbound car driven by Robert McLandress, who died as a result of injuries sustained in the collision.
Defendant argues that the prosecutor committed reversible error by reading the applicable statute to the jury. A review of the record reveals that the prosecutor did read a portion of the negligent homicide statute in order to clarify what he claimed was a misstatement of law by defense counsel. The prosecutor's reading followed a brief conference with the judge.
It has long been the law of Michigan that it is improper for counsel to read law to the jury, but that counsel are entitled to argue their theory of the case, even though this necessitates occasional reference to the law of the case. In Fosdick v. Van Arsdale (1889), 74 Mich. 302, 305, 41 N.W. 931, the Supreme Court held flatly 'the counsel have no right to read law to the jury * * *.' See, also People v. Holmes (1966), 2 Mich.App. 283, 139 N.W.2d 771; People v. Robinson (1924), 228 Mich. 64, 199 N.W. 622; and People v. Smith (1913), 177 Mich. 358, 143 N.W. 12. This rule establishes a standard of propriety separating the impartial role of the judge from the adversary roles of counsel. It ensures that the role of the judge in instructing on the law is not usurped by counsel, thereby destroying the impartiality of the forum. See, E.g., People v. Montague (1888), 71 Mich. 447, 457, 39 N.W. 585; and People v. Lambath (1941), 297 Mich. 349, 297 N.W. 519.
It might well have been a better practice for the learned trial judge to have read the law himself to settle the dispute between counsel as to the appropriate statutory degree of negligence. While the prosecutor's action may have been improper, defendant neither made timely objection to the action complained of nor has he demonstrated that the prosecutor's action in any way prejudiced him. Moreover, the record reveals that the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the law in his charge in chief. In view of these circumstances we conclude that no reversible error in this regard was committed.
The prosecutor was unable to locate the occupants of the white Chevrolet. Defendant contends that the State's failure to indorse the names of these witnesses on the information and failure to exercise due diligence in locating them are grounds for reversal. The prosecutor has no duty to indorse the names of witnesses whose identity he does not know. People v. Loggins (1969), 17 Mich.App. 388, 169 N.W.2d 519. Moreover, the record reveals that the prosecutor attempted to locate the occupants of the Chevrolet and that two other eyewitnesses to the accident testified at trial. On trial defendant's counsel made no objection to the prosecution's failure to indorse the names of the witnesses or his failure to exercise due diligence in searching for them. When the failure of the prosecution to indorse Res gestae witnesses and produce them at trial is known to the defendant and no objection is made, the issue will not be considered on appeal. People v. Kaczor (1968), 14 Mich.App. 724, 165 N.W.2d 899; People v. Tiner (1969), 17 Mich.App. 18, 168 N.W.2d 911;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Missouri
...for continued questioning of a witness since he was not trying to usurp the role relegated to the trial judge (cf., People v. June, 34 Mich.App. 313, 191 N.W.2d 52 (1971)), and, in any event, was correct in his reliance on that legal The above claims of prosecutorial misconduct did not, eit......
-
People v. Harrison
...as here, he chooses to make no further investigation into the facts of the case after filing the information. Cf. People v. June, 34 Mich.App. 313, 191 N.W.2d 52 (1971). The prosecutor seems to be of the opinion, since the statute speaks of 'witnesses known to him at the time of filing (the......
-
People v. Adams
...to the jury, nevertheless, an occasional reference to the law may be necessary to argue the theory of the case. People v. June, 34 Mich.App. 313, 316, 191 N.W.2d 52, 54 (1971). Any erroneous impressions that the prosecutor's remarks might have created in the minds of the jurors was dispelle......
-
State v. Droste, 57381
...of the judge in instructing on the law is not usurped by counsel, thereby destroying impartiality of the forum. See People v. June, 34 Mich.App. 313, 191 N.W.2d 52, 54. We perceive no rational theory under which the State might contend the question put to Wilson would elicit evidence that w......