People v. Liggett, 77
| Decision Date | 21 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 77,No. 1,77,1 |
| Citation | 135 N.W.2d 586,1 Mich.App. 261 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee. v. Lawrence LIGGETT, Defendant-Appellant. Cal |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Dominick R. Carnovale, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty., Detroit, for appellee.
Before QUINN, P. J., and FITZGERALD and KAVANAGH, JJ.
Defendant-appellant appeals from his conviction on a charge of breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit larceny. He was tried in Detroit recorder's court before the Honorable Joseph A. Gillis and a jury. He was represented by counsel. A co-defendant, Alfred Sanders, was tried at the same time; he testified at trial; Liggett did not. Lester Sanders was involved in the crime but he was not charged. The errors complained of deal with the trial court's refusal to admit certain testimony by Alfred Sanders and portions of the charge to the jury.
After testifying as to his participation in the crime, the following appears in the transcript of the testimony of Alfred Sanders:
'Q. You did this on your own, is that correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you have any assistance in the perpetration of this offense?
A. No.
Q. Is there anything else you want to say to this jury?
Q. (continuing) Did your brother Lester in any way participate in the commission of this crime?
A. No, he didn't.
Q. (continuing) That is all. You may cross-examine.'
The fact that Alfred Sanders was permitted to testify with respect to his brother without objection, did not justify the admission of similar testimony with respect to defendant-appellant over objection. The trial court properly sustained the objection.
There was considerable confusion in the charge with respect to identifying codefendants by their correct names and by referring to Sander's brother as Liggett's brother, and the prosecuting attorney merely added to the confusion in his attempt to clarify the situation. However, this was not a protracted trial. The entire testimony was completed in less than a day. Before accepting the verdict, Judge Gillis made sure the jury was not misled by this confusion, as follows:
'THE COURT: I may have misspoke myself. I may have gotten confused. However, the jury will remember the testimony and will also remember which one took the stand. Very well, that is all.
(Whereupon the police officer in charge of the jury was duly sworn by the court clerk.)
(Whereupon the jury reached a verdict at 10:28 a. m., and a roll call was duly taken by the court clerk.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Liggett
...'The Jury: Yes.' The jury brought in a verdict of guilty as to both defendants. Upon appeal by Liggett, the Court of Appeals (1 Mich.App. 261, 135 N.W.2d 586) held that, while the charge was misleading, no new trial was required because the judge had made sure the jury was not misled. Appea......