People v. Noble, Docket No. 7234
| Decision Date | 31 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 7234,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 178 N.W.2d 118,23 Mich.App. 100 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry NOBLE, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Brian D. Einhorn, Plunkett, Cooney, Rutt & Peacock, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Thomas P. Smith, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and QUINN and V. J. BRENNAN, JJ.
Defendant Larry Noble was convicted in recorder's court for the city of Detroit of assault with intent to commit rape.*
The defendant waived trial by jury.
The prosecutrix, a 70-year-old woman, testified to having rented an apartment where the defendant lived and worked as a janitor. On June 3, 1968, the day she moved in, defendant followed her inside her apartment, demanded sexual intercourse, prevented her escape by holding a knife to her throat, knocked her to the floor, and then left when she screamed. She remained in her apartment the remainder of the evening and through the next morning, when, still in a highly excited state, she related the incident to the caretaker. The caretaker called the police.
Defendant argues that testimony of the caretaker relating her conversation with the prosecutrix 12 hours after the incident was hearsay and that it does not qualify for admission under the Res gestae exception. In People v. Dickinson (1966), 2 Mich.App. 646, 650, 141 N.W.2d 360, 361, this Court incorporated language found in People v. Kayne (1934), 268 Mich. 186, 255 N.W. 758:
The record in the present case clearly establishes that the prosecutrix was highly excited and upset when she made the declarations. Further, the possibility of another attack may have caused the delay in the prosecutrix' detailing of the incident. Under such circumstances we cannot say that the statement was so remote in time as not to be a part of the Res gestae of the crime. Once this determination is made both the fact and the details of the complaint are admissible in evidence. People v. Woodward (1970), 21 Mich.App. 549, 175 N.W.2d 842.
Since we find no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McPherson, Docket No. 10773
...(citing Wharton on Criminal Evidence (9th Ed), § 262).' Territory v. Clayton, 8 Mont. 1, 19 P. 293, 297.' See also People v. Noble, 23 Mich.App. 100, 178 N.W.2d 118 (1970); 1 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law & Procedure (2d ed), § 434, p. 527. It is reasonable to conclude that the witness' ......
-
People v. Bobo
...him about what was said or not said to the police at the time of arrest as part of the res gestae citing People v. Noble, 23 Mich.App. 100, 101, 178 N.W.2d 118, 119 (1970), or as an inconsistent 'non-utterance', citing People v. Calhoun, 33 Mich.App. 141, 147, 189 N.W.2d 743, 746 (1971). Th......
-
People v. Meyer
...the passage of time requirement for spontaneity. People v. Woodward, 21 Mich.App. 549, 175 N.W.2d 842 (1970); People v. Noble, 23 Mich.App. 100, 178 N.W.2d 118 (1970). But see, Josephson, Evidence, 1971 Ann. Survey of Mich.Law, 18 Wayne L.Rev. 101, 112 (1972) (for a criticism of these and o......
-
McRae v. State
...no logical basis for distinguishing this case from Custer or Lamb. See also Annot., 89 A.L.R.3d 102 (1979). But see People v. Noble, 23 Mich.App. 100, 178 N.W.2d 118 (1970). We have found no authority for extending the res gestae doctrine to statements made days after the incident in The ad......