People v. McLaughlin
| Decision Date | 24 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 1052,1052,1 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward McLAUGHLIN, Defendant-Appellant. Cal |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Tom Downs, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen.,Lansing, Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and KAVANAGH and WATTS, JJ.
After a jury trial the defendant was convicted of robbery armed in the Wayne county circuit court on April 12, 1965. His appeal makes four specifications of error:
1. The prosecutor withheld evidence which might have established the defendant's innocence.
2. The people failed to endorse and produce a res gestae witness.
3. The people's witness described her attacker as having eyes that looked like those of a 'dope fiend' which phrase was calculated to prejudice the jury.
4. The court erred in refusing to admit evidence of the fact that the defendant voluntarily took a lie detector test.
The chief witness for the people was one Clara Ponka who testified she was robbed by the defendant and that he was wearing a small black hat which she knocked off into her car during the robbery. The hat was found by Mrs. Ponka's son when he was taking the groceries out of the car. At the trial the hat was not offered in evidence although it was apparently available.
The defendant claims that the prosecutor had an obligation to offer the hat in evidence because it Might have helped to prove defendant's innocence.
This novel argument is an unwarranted extension of the sound proposition that the prosecutor has a duty to present the whole res gestae whether its tendency be to establish guilt or innocence. We are cited to Hurd v. People (1872), 25 Mich. 405 and People v. Davis (1884), 52 Mich. 569, 18 N.W. 362 which are indeed authority for the principle, although the principle is not in doubt. These cases hold that a prosecutor having the duty to show the whole res gestae may not suppress a part of it. In Hurd the People sought to limit the testimony to the episode in the house, excluding a preliminary altercation outside. The court held the whole transaction should be shown. In Davis it was held that the statement of a witness made to the prosecutor was not privileged but was available to the defense and the prosecutor could not refuse to produce it.
In each of the cases cited the prosecution deliberately sought to withhold evidence favorable to the defense. The record here does not show such a deliberate withholding of evidence. The defense presumably could have introduced the evidence had it seen fit to do so. It does not appear that the prosecutor even thought of it during the trial and the defense appears to have recalled it only after the trial was over.
If the objection over had any validity it was raised too late. People v. Elliott (1948), 322 Mich. 313, 33 N.W.2d 811.
The defense complains of the failure to endorse and present a witness who gave a statement to the police according to the complaining witness. If there was such a witness Known to the prosecutor she should have been produced. There is no adequate showing that such other witness was known, however. This objection also comes too late. The defendant here had thoroughly competent counsel throughout the trial and the appeal. Unless necessary to prevent manifest injustice we do not consider...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brocato
... ... 11 The only correct ruling. Neither the results of such tests nor any reference to them has ever been proper in this State. See, for example, People v. Frechette (1968), 380 Mich. 64, 155 N.W.2d 830; People v. McLaughlin (1966), 3 Mich.App. 391, 142 N.W.2d 484; People v. Baker (1967), 7 Mich.App. 471, 152 N.W.2d 43 ... 12 Objection to the question was sustained. But the damage was already done. Defense counsel should have moved for and been granted a mistrial. The fact that he failed to do so does not ... ...
-
People v. Rodgers
... ... Many are concerned with defendant's attempt to introduce proofs that he passed a lie-detector test when questioned as to his present story, People v. Becker, supra; People v. Ignofo, 315 Mich. 626, 641, 24 N.W.2d 514 (1946); People v. Davies, supra; People v. McLaughlin, 3 Mich.App. 391, 142 N.W.2d 484 (1966); People v. Mattison, 26 Mich.App. 453, 461, 182 N.W.2d 604 (1970); People v. Levelston, 54 Mich.App. 477, 221 N.W.2d 235 (1974). Others concern the attempts of the prosecutor to ask a prosecution witness if her or she took a polygraph test to verify his or ... ...
-
People v. Johnson, Docket No. 11271
... ... We therefore rule that the defendant failed to preserve the error for appeal. People v. Willis, 1 Mich.App. 428, 137 N.W.2d 723 (1965); People v. McLaughlin, 3 Mich.App. 391, 142 N.W.2d 484 (1966) ... In any event, we are constrained to come to the conclusion that after an examination of the entire record, and considering the fact that defendant did not object to the now objected-to comments of the prosecuting attorney, that the error ... ...
-
People v. Kelly
... ... No abuse of discretion by the trial court has been shown. This Court will not disturb that court's holding without such a showing. People v. McLaughlin (1966), 3 Mich.App. 391, 142 N.W.2d 484 ... Defendant next objects to the introduction, at trial, of testimony regarding the pretrial line-up identification of him by the complaining witness. Below, defendant neither objected to the court's receipt of the line-up testimony nor the ... ...