People v. Kern

Citation149 N.W.2d 216,6 Mich.App. 406
Decision Date28 March 1967
Docket NumberDocket No. 1362
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William H. KERN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. . Div. 2
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan (US)

Anthony J. Mansour, Draper, Mansour & Daniel, Flint, for appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Robert D. Leonard, Pros. Atty., Genesee County, Flint, for appellee.

Before T. G. KAVANAGH, P.J., and GILLIS and McGREGOR, JJ.

T. G. KAVANAGH, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was charged with gross indecency and sodomy, tried by a jury, and convicted. 1

During the Voir dire examination the trial judge pointed our the accused to the jury identifying him both by name and by his alias, Bill Dakota. He further asked if any of the jurors were acquainted with defendant. None were.

After the complainant had testified, the prosecutor moved to have the name of a material witness stricken from the information, or in the alternative, to be excused from producing that witness. The motion to strike was denied. The alternative was granted over defendant's objection after the officer in charge of serving the subpoenas testified he had attempted to serve the witness a day and a half previously, but was unable to. The prosecutor then twice offered the remaining witnesses endorsed on the information but all were waived by the defendant except for the witness which the court excused the prosecutor from producing. The prosecutor rested and the defendant offered no testimony.

After closing arguments defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the prosecutor failed to identify defendant as the person who committed the alleged offenses. The motion was denied.

Upon returning a verdict of guilty, the jury also made a recommendation that the complainant be remanded to Juvenile court and be placed under psychiatric care.

Defendant appeals alleging three errors:

1. The prosecution failed to identify defendant as the perpetrator of the alleged offenses.

2. The prosecutor was improperly excused from producing at trial a material witness whose name was endorsed on the information.

3. It was improper to permit the jury, after they returned a verdict of guilty, to recommend that the complaining witness be placed under psychiatric care.

As an essential part of his case, the prosecutor must identify the accused as the person who committed the alleged offense. In his brief, defendant treats the identification of the accused as part of the right of confrontation. However, the duty to identify the accused is quite distinct from the right of confrontation. The essential purpose of the latter is to secure the right of cross-examination. The duty of the prosecutor to identify the accused is an element of his general duty to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Certainly proof of defendant's connection with the alleged offense is an indispensable element of that duty.

Identity may be shown by either direct testimony or circumstantial evidence which gives the jury an abiding conviction to a moral certainty that the accused was the perpetrator of the offense. See People v. Stewart (1910), 163 Mich. 1, 127 N.W. 816; People v. Sullivan (1939), 290 Mich. 414, 287 N.W. 567. While we agree with defendant that the conduct of the judge during voir dire did not excuse the prosecutor from proving this important element of his case, we find that the testimony of the complaining witness was sufficient to identify defendant as the perpetrator of the offense. The complainant testified that he had seen 'the defendant' at the Berridge Hotel on the night in question and that 'we' went up to room number 308 where complainant and 'Bill' had some drinks and where 'he' did the acts complained of. This testimony occurred in a context in which it was clear that the witness was referring to defendant.

The prosecutor had indorsed on the information the name of Ronnie Page as a material witness, but failed to produce him at the trial. The trial judge denied the prosecutor's motion to strike Page's name from the information, but excused him from producing the witness, after finding that the prosecutor had showed due diligence in attempting to serve Page with a subpoena. Defendant claims error on the ground that the question of due diligence was for the jury, not the judge to decide.

Page was not a Res gestae witness and therefore the prosecutor was not required to indorse his name on the information. See People v. Davis (1955), 343 Mich. 348, 72 N.W.2d 269. However, if the prosecutor does indorse the name of such a witness he must secure his presence in court and the defendant is entitled to rely upon the prosecutor's duty to produce him. See People v. Whittemore (1925), 230 Mich. 435, 203 N.W. 87; People v. Lummis (1932), 260 Mich....

To continue reading

Request your trial
119 cases
  • Crawford v. Woods, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-13499
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • 30 janvier 2020
    ...offense, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the charged offense. People v. Kern, 6 Mich. App. 406, 409, 149 N.W.2d 216 (1967). Direct or circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence may constitute satisfactory pr......
  • Henry v. Balcarel, Case No. 17-cv-13362
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • 5 novembre 2020
    ...458, 466 (1993), including the identity of the perpetrator, Dell v. Straub, 194 F. Supp. 2d 629, 647 (E.D. Mich. 2002); People v. Kern, 6 Mich. App. 406, 409 (1967), and intent or state of mind. People v. Dumas, 454 Mich. 390 (1997). Applying the Jackson standard, the Michigan Court of Appe......
  • People v. Harrison
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • 20 février 1973
    ...People v. Keywell, 256 Mich. 139, 239 N.W. 288 (1931); People v. Banks, 27 Mich.App. 331, 183 N.W.2d 429 (1970); People v. Kern, 6 Mich.App. 406, 149 N.W.2d 216 (1967). Moreover, this Court has held that the prosecutor's duty under this statute is limited to witnesses whose identity is know......
  • Kyle v. Romanowski
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • 17 mars 2011
    ...prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the charged offense. See, e.g., People v. Kern, 6 Mich. App. 406, 409, 149 N.W.2d 216, 218 (1967). In other words, "proof of [the] defendant's connection with the allegedoffense is an indispensable element of [the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT