People v. Maglaya
| Decision Date | 27 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 4091,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 17 Mich.App. 379,169 N.W.2d 530 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent MAGLAYA, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Edward F. Bell, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Wayne County, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and McGREGOR and BRONSON, JJ.
Defendant, convicted of armed robbery,* alleges that several errors occurred in the lower court trial. Most of the errors alleged relate to the prosecution's principal witness, a confessed participant in the robbery. The witness spent time in a mental institution, but had been adjudged sane by the probate court about one month before the crime occurred. At trial, defendant moved to exclude the witness's testimony as incompetent, and alternatively requested that the witness testify in the absence of the jury. The court denied defendant's requests. Defendant did not object to the court's rulings.
Since the witness was determined to be sane in a sanity restoration hearing preceding the crime, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motions and allowing the witness to testify. Moreover, defendant did not preserve the issue for appeal by objecting to the court's rulings. People v. Huey (1956), 345 Mich. 120, 75 N.W.2d 893; People v. Havey (1968), 11 Mich.App. 69, 160 N.W.2d 629.
After the witness had testified, defendant offered to introduce expert testimony to determine the witness's credibility. The court barred the testimony. The expert witnesses offered by defendant would have testified concerning the witness's homosexual propensities, but the court ruled that homosexuality was a matter collateral to the trial for armed robbery. We agree. The fact that the witness may have had homosexual tendencies would not have necessarily impeached his believability. Furthermore, being a collateral matter of little relevance, the lower court properly prevented the inflammatory subject from beclouding the material issues being litigated.
A police officer testified over defendant's objection that he seized an unregistered gun from defendant, who alleges that the testimony constituted reversible error. Defendant argues the testimony concerned an unproved and irrelevant crime, and he contends the court compounded the error by its instructions.
If testimony tends to prove the offense charged, it is not incompetent because it also tends to prove the commission of another crime. People v. Seaton (1926), 235 Mich. 698, 209 N.W. 917. The gun referred to was similar to the gun used in the robbery. Thus the officer's testimony was not tantamount to reversible prejudice. Moreover, the court's instruction was curative and not compounding as to any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Belcher
...People v. Lewis (1967), 6 Mich.App. 447, 149 N.W.2d 457; People v. Gill (1968), 12 Mich.App. 383, 163 N.W.2d 14; People v. Maglaya (1969), 17 Mich.App. 379, 169 N.W.2d 530. See also: People v. Dorrikas (1958), 354 Mich. 303, 92 N.W.2d Defendant's reliance on the authority he cites is mispla......
-
People v. McGath, Docket No. 7109
...on the instant charge of robbery armed (133307) and Hayes and Maglaya were bound over on robbery armed in case number 133317. 17 Mich.App. 379, 169 N.W.2d 530. During the trial of Hayes and Maglaya which was concluded on May 12, 1967, several months before the beginning of the trial of the ......
-
Maglaya v. Buchkoe, 73-2073
...found Maglaya guilty of the April 1, 1966 robbery and his conviction was affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals in People v. Maglaya, 17 Mich.App. 379, 169 N.W.2d 530. Maglaya's jury trial on the May 23, 1966 robbery commenced in Recorder's Court on October 26, 1967 and resulted in his c......
-
People v. Skidmore, Docket No. 6186
...conduct does not thereby render such evidence inadmissible. People v. Wilson (1885), 55 Mich. 506, 21 N.W. 905; People v. Maglaya (1969), 17 Mich.App. 379, 169 N.W.2d 530. See also M.C.L.A. § 768.27 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § Secondly, the trial judge refused to grant defendant a mistrial after ......