People v. Justice

• Decision Date: 27 September 1973
• Docket Number: No. 2,Docket No. 14433--4,2
• Citation: People v. Justice, 50 Mich.App. 55, 212 N.W.2d 762 (Mich. App. 1973)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thurman JUSTICE and William C. Skelding, Defendants-Appellants
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 762

212 N.W.2d 762

50 Mich.App. 55

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thurman JUSTICE and William C. Skelding, Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 14433--4.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

Sept. 27, 1973.

Released for Publication Dec. 19, 1973.

Lawrence R. Greene, Detroit, for defendants-appellants.

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

Before BRONSON, P.J., and V. J. BRENNAN and WALSH,* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants, William C. Skelding and Thurman Justice, were charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. M.C.L.A. § 750.110; M.S.A. § 28.305. On April 15, 1972, a jury found both defendants guilty. On May 9, 1972, defendant Skelding was sentenced to serve 2 1/2 to 10 years and defendant Justice was sentenced to serve 7 1/2 to 10 years.

Defendant Skelding raises a single issue in this appeal: Is it reversible error when the trial court fails to instruct the jurors Sua sponte that they might ask questions of the witnesses?

Defendant Skelding first complains that a preliminary instruction to the jurors by the court was a statement that the jurors had No right to question witnesses. The instruction read:

'So that we can understand each other also, do not engage any of us in any conversation during the lunch recess or breaks, overnight recesses, any of that business.'

We disagree. The clear import of this statement by the trial judge was that everything pertaining to the trial had to take place in the courtroom. The trial court was explaining that no discussion of the proceedings was to take place during recesses outside the courtroom.

Defendant relies on People v. Heard, 388 Mich. 182, 188, 200 N.W.2d 73, 76 (1972), which held Inter alia:

'We hold that the questioning of witnesses by jurors, and the method of submission of such questions, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. The trial judge May permit such questioning if he wishes, and we hold that it was error for the judge to rule that under no circumstances might a juror ask any questions.' (Emphasis supplied.)

Heard, supra, only stated that it was error to instruct the jurors that questions were Totally precluded. Defendant Skelding never requested the court to permit questions nor did he object at trial to the statement complained of on this appeal. Both the questioning and the method of submission of the questions are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court. There is no requirement in Heard requiring that the court Sua sponte instruct the jurors of the possibility of questions. The defendant who wishes a jury appraised of this possibility may invoke the court's discretion by request. We find no error.

Defendant Justice contends that the trial court should have directed a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, that the prosecutor improperly introduced evidence of defendant's prior criminal record, and that his sentence of 7 1/2 to 10 years is in violation of the guidelines set forth in People v. Tanner, 387 Mich. 683, 199 N.W.2d 202 (1972).

Our careful review of the entire record and transcript discloses conflicting evidence upon the issue of sanity. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution we find sufficient evidence to present a question for the jury. See People v. Stoddard, 48 Mich.App. 440, 210 N.W.2d 470 (1973); People v. English, 29 Mich.App. 36, 185 N.W.2d 139 (1970), leave den., 384 Mich. 823 (1971). The jury decided the question of sanity adverse to defendant and we find no error.

A careful reading in context of the testimony of defendant's psychiatric expert Discloses no impermissible reference to prior convictions. The psychiatrist first indicated that defendant was a psychopathic...