People v. Mosley

• Decision Date: 03 March 1977
• Docket Number: Docket No. 23049
• Citation: 74 Mich.App. 145,254 N.W.2d 33
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mannie MOSLEY, Defendant-Appellant. 74 Mich.App. 145, 254 N.W.2d 33
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 33

254 N.W.2d 33

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mannie MOSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 23049.

74 Mich.App. 145, 254 N.W.2d 33

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

March 3, 1977.

Rehearing Denied May 23, 1977.

Released for Publication June 2, 1977.

[74 MICHAPP 146] Burgess & Burgess by Barbara A. Schwartz, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Wilson, App. Chief, Timothy A. Baughman, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BRONSON, P. J., and BASHARA and HORN, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder in violation of M.C.L.A. § 750.317; M.S.A. § 28.549 by a trial court sitting without a jury. He was sentenced to serve a term of from 10 to 20 years imprisonment. He appeals his conviction as of right, raising five issues for our consideration.

The record shows that for some reason the trial court failed to rule on the defendant's motion to [74 MICHAPP 147] quash the information on the ground that evidence produced at the preliminary examination was insufficient to bind him over until the date of trial. At that time defendant renewed his motion but the trial court declined to read the preliminary examination transcript fearing an impropriety and deferred ruling on the motion. At the close of the prosecution's proofs, the motion was again renewed and apparently denied except as to the degree of homicide. The defendant then rested his case. Nothing in the record indicates that the trial court ever read the preliminary examination transcript.

To deny the defendant a ruling on his motion was error. The preliminary examination transcript could have been read by the trial court under the authority of the defendant's waiver without impropriety. People v. Garcia, 51 Mich.App. 109, 114-115, 214 N.W.2d 544 (1974). We do not, however, believe the error to be reversible. The decision of the examining magistrate to bind over will not be disturbed absent the showing of abuse of discretion. People v. Melvin, 70 Mich.App. 138, 245 N.W.2d 178 (1976); People v. Bethea, 65 Mich.App. 375, 379, 237 N.W.2d 336 (1975). We find on the record of the preliminary examination sufficient evidence to find probable cause to believe the defendant committed second-degree murder, thus, the defendant could not have prevailed in his motion to quash and the trial court's failure to rule on the motion was harmless error.

The defendant next contends that allowing a neighbor of the victim to testify as to a conversation with the victim was error under the hearsay rule. The evidence showed that the victim, defendant's wife, was beaten to death. On the day of her demise the witness encountered the victim in the [74 MICHAPP 148] apartment building in which they both lived. The victim was swollen, bleeding, shaking and nervous. The witness testified that the victim told him that her husband "did this to her".

Admission of this statement by the trial court under the res gestae or excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule was not an abuse of discretion. A statement may be admitted as an excited utterance if three criteria are met.

" 'In Michigan, the law regarding res gestae is clear. * * * (T)he conditions upon which such statements will be allowed in evidence are (1) that there is a startling occasion, startling enough to produce nervous excitement, and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) that the statement must have been made before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent; and (3) the statement must relate to the circumstances of the occurrence preceding it.' " People v. Johnson, 58 Mich.App. 1, 6, 226 N.W.2d 730, 733 (1975).

From the declarant's physical description the trial court was free to infer that there had been a startling event resulting in nervous excitement. From the fact that she was still bleeding and quaking it was reasonable to infer that the event was recent. Last, the...