People v. Lodge
| Decision Date | 16 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 84261 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Joe LODGE, Defendant-Appellant. 157 Mich.App. 544, 403 N.W.2d 591 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[157 MICHAPP 546] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., William F. Delhey, Pros. Atty., and David A. King, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Culpepper, Slomski, Gordon & Cal by Josh Gordon, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Before CYNAR, P.J., and R.B. BURNS and O'BRIEN, * JJ.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of armed robbery, M.C.L. Sec. 750.529; M.S.A. Sec. 28.797. On the following day, he pled guilty to being an habitual offender, fourth offense, M.C.L. Sec. 769.12; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1084. He was sentenced to from ten to fifteen years in prison. However, this sentence was later vacated and the judge imposed a prison term of from eighteen to fifty years. Defendant appeals as of right.
Defendant's conviction arose out of an armed robbery at the Ypsilanti home of Byron Miller on June 18, 1984. A "be-on-the-lookout" bulletin was subsequently transmitted over police radio describing the vehicle connected with the robbery. The dispatch described the vehicle, a van, gave the [157 MICHAPP 547] license plate number, and stated that it was wanted in connection with an armed robbery and that the occupants might be armed and dangerous.
At approximately 2:00 a.m. on June 30, 1984, two East Detroit police officers spotted a vehicle matching the bulletin. They stopped the van and searched its occupants. Defendant was a passenger in the van. While patting down defendant, the officer found four live .410 gauge shotgun shells in his pocket. The van was towed to the police station where a .410 gauge shotgun was discovered in the vehicle. Defendant was arrested for possession of an "illegal firearm." However, the arresting officer testified that he measured the shotgun and found it to be eighteen inches--a legal length. This charge was later dismissed at the preliminary examination.
Prior to the preliminary examination, however, defendant was taken to the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department to participate in a line-up. Byron Miller, the victim of the armed robbery, identified defendant as one of his assailants and defendant was subsequently charged and bound over for armed robbery.
Before trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence of the line-up identification and the shotgun as the fruit of an illegal arrest. The court found that, while it was a "close question", defendant's arrest was legal and therefore the line-up identification and shotgun were admissible. This Court will not reverse the trial court's ruling at a suppression hearing unless it is clearly erroneous. People v. Burrell, 417 Mich. 439, 448, 339 N.W.2d 403 (1983).
An arrest without a warrant is permissible if the arresting officer has reasonable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and reasonable cause to believe the person arrested committed[157 MICHAPP 548] it. M.C.L. Sec. 764.15; M.S.A. Sec. 28.874; People v. Fuqua, 146 Mich.App. 250, 379 N.W.2d 442 (1985). An authorized police bulletin advising police that a felony has been committed, when coupled with other facts and circumstances, provides probable cause for an arrest without a warrant. People v. Coward, 111 Mich.App. 55, 61, 315 N.W.2d 144 (1981), lv. den. 417 Mich. 873 (1983); People v. Fuqua, supra.
In this case, the East Detroit police officers were responding to a police bulletin describing the van and license number. Although there was no physical description of the suspects, the van and license plate number matched the description exactly. There is no question that the initial stop was valid. When the officers searched defendant pursuant to the stop, they uncovered four shotgun shells and their subsequent search of the van uncovered a shotgun. This additional evidence, coupled with the police bulletin, was sufficient to provide the officers with probable cause to believe that defendant committed the armed robbery. Based on this record, we do not believe the trial court's finding is clearly erroneous.
Defendant next argues that error requiring reversal occurred when the prosecutor cross-examined defendant's alibi witnesses concerning their failure to come forward and tell their story to police prior to the trial. We agree with those panels which have held that this type of cross-examination is admissible within the discretion of the trial court. People v. McClow, 40 Mich.App. 185, 198 N.W.2d 707 (1972); People v. Lafayette, 138 Mich.App. 380, 360 N.W.2d 891 (1984). Here, the alibi witnesses cross-examined by the prosecutor admitted to being close friends of the defendant and that they were aware of the charges against defendant shortly after his arrest. Based on these [157 MICHAPP 549] facts, a logical inference could be drawn that the witnesses would have brought their information to the police prior to trial. People v. Perkins, 141 Mich.App. 186, 366 N.W.2d 94 (1985), lv. den. 423 Mich. 858 (1985). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting this line of inquiry on cross-examination.
We are equally unpersuaded that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to examine defendant's brother regarding his testimony on behalf of defendant in a previous trial. This type of questioning is within the discretion of the trial court. People v. McConnell, 124 Mich.App. 672, 335 N.W.2d 226 (1983). After thoroughly considering this issue, the trial court ruled that the prosecutor could question the witness but could not indicate that the prior testimony was an alibi defense in a previous criminal prosecution. The court did not abuse its discretion in permitting this limited inquiry.
Next, defendant maintains that he was denied a fair trial when the prosecutor introduced allegedly improper rebuttal testimony. After the prosecutor elicited from defendant's witnesses on cross-examination that defendant was arrested within a few days of his birthday party, June 18, the prosecutor called the police officer who responded that defendant was actually arrested on June 30. Defendant's alibi was based upon his attendance at the birthday party. Defendant contends that the arrest date...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lodge, 80561
...LODGE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 80561. 429 Mich. 851, 418 N.W.2d 381 Supreme Court of Michigan. Sept. 9, 1987. Prior report: 157 Mich.App. 544, 403 N.W.2d 591. On order of the Court, the delayed application for leave to appeal and request for review under MCR 7.303, are considered. Since th......