People v. Maniez, Docket No. 8176
| Decision Date | 24 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 8176,2 |
| Citation | 34 Mich.App. 55,190 N.W.2d 682 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis MANIEZ, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Kenneth L. Rancilio, Ross & Bruff, Mt. Clemens, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., George N. Parris, Pros. Atty., Thaddeus F. Hamera, Chief Appeals Atty., Don L. Milbourn, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DANHOF, P.J., and FITZGERALD and QUINN, JJ.
After a jury trial the defendant was convicted of robbery armed, M.C.L.A. § 750.529 (Stat.Ann.1971 Cum.Supp. § 28.797). He appeals contending that he was denied counsel at a pretrial lineup and that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing a Res gestae witness to be indorsed after the trial had begun.
The trial court held that the eye-witnesses' in-court identification of the defendant had an independent basis and had not been tainted by the pretrial confrontation. We agree.
Factors to be considered in determining whether the identification was tainted were stated in People v. Hutton (1970), 21 Mich.App. 312, 326, 175 N.W.2d 860, 867, as follows:
'And among the factors to be considered in applying this test are: the witness' prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act; the existence of any discrepancy between any pretrial description and the defendant's actual appearance; any identification of another person before confrontation; photogenic identification before confrontation; failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion; and the lapse of time between the alleged act and the confrontation identification.'
In this case, the identifying witnesses have emphatically and consistently identified the defendant. There was no indication that they were prompted. When the crime was committed they were able to observe the defendant closely. The description they gave the police immediately after the crime fits the defendant. They were able to explain in detail why they were able to identify the defendant.
The trial court did not err in holding that the in-court identifications were proper.
The Res gestae witness issue is without merit. The defendant was in no way prejudiced and, therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the indorsement.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hampton
...In any event, the record supports a finding that the in-court identifications had sufficient independent basis. People v. Maniez, 34 Mich.App. 55, 190 N.W.2d 682 (1971); People v. Hutton, 21 Mich.App. 312, 175 N.W.2d 860 (1970); People v. Anderson, 389 Mich. 155, 205 N.W.2d 461 Finally, def......
-
People v. Edwards
...be deemed inadmissible if it had an independent basis. People v. Harper, 43 Mich.App. 500, 204 N.W.2d 263 (1972); People v. Maniez, 34 Mich.App. 55, 190 N.W.2d 682 (1971); People v. Anderson, The evidence indicates that the robber was in the store for approximately 10 to 15 minutes and that......
-
People v. Spaulding
...of defendant's rights, the incourt identification is nonetheless admissible if it had an independent basis. People v. Maniez, 34 Mich.App. 55, 190 N.W.2d 682 (1971). The factors to be considered in ascertaining whether an in-court identification had a sufficient independent basis were set f......
-
People v. Harper
...subsequent in-court identification will not be deemed inadmissible or prejudicial if it had an independent basis. People v. Maniez, 34 Mich.App. 55, 190 N.W.2d 682 (1971). The factors to be considered in determining whether or not the subsequent in-court identification had a sufficient inde......