People v. Noble
| Full Citation | People v. Noble, 18 Mich.App. 300, 170 N.W.2d 916 (Mich. App. 1969) |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1969 |
| Citation | 170 N.W.2d 916,18 Mich.App. 300 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 7026,2 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas L. NOBLE, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Charles A. Nelson, Jackson, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Bruce A. Barton, Pros. Atty., Jackson County, Jackson, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and QUINN and DANHOF, JJ.
Defendant appeals his conviction for escape from prison contrary to M.C.L.A. § 750.193 (Stat.Ann.1969 Cum.Supp. § 28.390).
Defendant's first allegation of error is that he was not arrested and arraigned promptly after being captured and returned to prison. After formal charges were brought, he was promptly arraigned so there is no question of a violation of M.C.L.A. § 764.26 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.885). Defendant's real contention is that the prison authorities denied him due process of law by keeping him in detention for 36 days after his recapture before charging and arraigning him for the escape. 'There is no constitutional right to be arrested.' Hoffa v. United States (1966), 385 U.S. 293, 310, 87 S.Ct. 408, 417, 17 L.Ed.2d 374. 1 Defendant was properly incarcerated under his original conviction; we fail to see how the delay in bringing the escape charge has prejudiced him. Cf. People v. Nawrocki (1967), 6 Mich.App. 46, 54, 150 N.W.2d 516.
Defendant's second contention is that it was error to deny his motion for mistrial after the arresting officer testified that he placed defendant under arrest for 'strong-armed robbery'. The trial judge properly warned the jury to disregard this reference to another crime not relevant to the escape. Defendant argues that this warning by the judge merely 'reemphasized' the error. To follow this line of reasoning, there would have to be a mistrial every time a witness misspoke, since no error could ever be cured by instructions. Such is obviously not the law. An unresponsive answer by a witness can generally be cured by proper instructions. People v. Kelsey (1942), 303 Mich. 715, 7 N.W.2d 120.
Defendant next maintains that his record of conviction was not properly introduced in evidence as a 'business record', so that the prosecution failed to prove that he was properly confined at the time of the escape. However, it is not necessary to introduce the certificate of confinement as a business record, since M.C.L.A. § 800.50 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.1419), provides that the certified copy of the sentence which is deposited with the prison warden 'shall be evidence of the facts therein contained'. Defendant does not contend that the document admitted was not the proper one.
Finally, defendant protests that he only fled the prison work camp in desperation to avoid homosexual attacks by other prisoners. The problem of homosexuality in the prisons is serious and perplexing, and never more so than in a case such as this where such activity is forced upon a young man against his will. However, the answer to the problem is not the judicial sanctioning of escapes. While we have no reason to doubt the sincerity of this defendant, it is easy to visualize a rash of escapes, all rationalized by unverifiable tales of sexual assault. The solution must rather come from some kind of penological reform.
Two legal theories are offered to support defendant's claim that his departure from the prison work camp should not be punished as an escape. First, he argues that he did not have the specific intent to escape. A reading of the escape statute, M.C.L.A. § 750.193 (Stat.Ann.1969 Cum.Supp. § 28.390), 2 shows no indication that the legislature intended to make this a specific intent crime. The language is rather that of general prohibition. Defendant does not deny that he intended to leave the prison, and this is all the intent the law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fiorini
...87 S.Ct. 408, 417, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966). Defendant must show specific prejudicial effect of the delay.' See also People v. Noble, 18 Mich.App. 300, 302, 170 N.W.2d 916 (1969), People v. Smith, 30 Mich.App. 34, 186 N.W.2d 61 (1971). After a hearing on remand, the trial judge determined that......
-
People v. Fiorini
...p. 146, 170 N.W.2d 854, said the focus was not the delay per se but rather the evidence of prejudice. See, also, People v. Noble, 18 Mich.App. 300, 170 N.W.2d 916 (1969); People v. Rios, 27 Mich.App. 54, 183 N.W.2d 321 (1970); People v. Iaconis, 31 Mich.App. 703, 188 N.W.2d 175 (1971); Peop......
-
People v. McNeal
...diametrically opposed views on this issue. However, under either theory the appellant's argument fails. Pursuant to People v. Noble, 18 Mich.App. 300, 170 N.W.2d 916 (1969), appellant has no constitutional right to be arrested. In the alternative, were we to apply the three-pronged test of ......
-
People v. Lovercamp
...in not being willing to submit to five-fold sodomy) were literally all this defendant had left.' (P. 571.) In People v. Noble (1969), 18 Mich.App. 300, 170 N.W.2d 916, the Michigan Court of Appeal followed the same rationale in a case in which the defendant fled a prison work camp in desper......
-
Job's plight revisited: the necessity defense and the Endangered Species Act. .
...at 275. (103) Id. at 287. (104) 26 F. Cas. 360 (E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383). (105) Id. at 366. (106) Parry, supra note 100, at 405. (107) 170 N.W.2d 916 (Mich. Ct. App. (108) Id. (109) See id. at 918 (contemplating a "rash of escapes, all rationalized by unverifiable tales of sexual assault......