People v. Osborn
Decision Date | 16 February 1983 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 60216 |
Citation | 122 Mich.App. 63,329 N.W.2d 533 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Nelson OSBORN, Defendant-Appellant. 122 Mich.App. 63, 329 N.W.2d 533 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[122 MICHAPP 65] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Fred R. Hunter, III, Pros. Atty., and Michael A. Nickerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.
Wickett, Laudenslager & Baugh, P.C. by Mary E. Delehanty, Kalamazoo, for defendant-appellant.
Before KELLY, P.J., and MAHER and TAHVONEN, * JJ.
Defendant was convicted by a jury on July 23, 1981, of first-degree criminal sexual conduct under M.C.L. Sec. 750.520b(1)(a); M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(2)(1)(a) and sentenced to 5 to 20 years imprisonment. He appeals as of right.
Testimony showed that the defendant was divorced from his former wife. During their marriage defendant had lived with his wife and her daughter. The child testified that she had known the defendant all her life and was told that he was her father. When the child was six years old the defendant and his wife divorced; nevertheless, the child continued to see defendant until her twelth year, thinking he was her natural father.
Sometime between the 9th and 15th of January, 1981, the defendant and the young girl had sexual contact in the pole barn behind defendant's house. Such activity had been going on for at least a year and a half. Defendant had also begun photographing[122 MICHAPP 66] his exploits with the child in December, 1980 and retained the pictures. Eventually the child contacted a social worker at Protective Services about these incidents after watching a television program. The social worker later contacted a trooper at the Michigan State Police who swore out an affidavit to obtain a warrant to search defendant's residence for photographs of the child. The trooper secured the warrant and recovered the pictures from defendant's pole barn.
Defendant challenges the validity of the search warrant. He argues the warrant was invalid because the information contained in the trooper's affidavit was 45 days old and was stale. The affidavit, dated February 27, 1981, does reveal that the photographs were last seen on the previous January 11th. We cannot agree, however, that this information was stale. A search warrant must be supported on probable cause existing at the time the warrant is issued. People v. Chippewa Circuit Judge, 226 Mich. 326, 197 N.W. 539 (1924), People v. Gillam, 93 Mich.App. 548, 286 N.W.2d 890 (1979). Nevertheless, a lapse of time between the occurrence of the underlying facts and the issuance of the warrant does not automatically render the warrant stale. People v. Gillam, supra, p. 552, 286 N.W.2d 890. As a panel of this Court said in People v. Gillam, supra, p. 553, 286 N.W.2d 890: "the measure of a search warrant's staleness rests not on whether there is recent information to confirm that a crime is being committed, but whether probable cause is sufficiently fresh to presume that the sought items remain on the premises". Such probable cause is more likely to be "sufficiently fresh" when a history of criminal activity is involved. People v. Gillam, supra, p. 552, 286 N.W.2d 890.
In this case, defendant had been sexually exploiting his young victim for at least a year and a [122 MICHAPP 67] half before the issuance of the warrant. Indeed, the affidavit indicated that, according to the child, she had had regular sexual contact with the defendant since the age of three. The photographs were clearly not an isolated aberration but simply a variation in a long history of sexual abuse. The magistrate thus had enough information to conclude that defendant would not quickly dispose of the pictures but would retain them for his own future perverse enjoyment. The affidavit's allegations of a long history of sexual abuse between the child and defendant and the victim's personal knowledge of the existence and location of the photographs in January constituted probable cause sufficiently fresh to presume that the photographs were in defendant's residence when the warrant was issued. We must reject defendant's contention.
Defendant next contends that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause because the affidavit contained double hearsay. The affidavit provided:
The information here passed through two links. First, from the child complainant to the Protective Services worker and, second, from the social worker to the affiant. A magistrate may rely properly on hearsay. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). Moreover, reliance on double hearsay does not itself invalidate the warrant. People v. Chartrand, 73 Mich.App. 645, 252 N.W.2d 569 (1977). But as this Court said in People v. Brooks, 101 Mich.App. 416, 419, 300 N.W.2d 582 (1980):
The affidavit satisfies the first prong of the Brooks [122 MICHAPP 69] test for the same reasons that the information in the affidavit is not stale. The long history of sexual contact between the defendant and the child and the child's personal knowledge of the existence and location of the photographs support the conclusion that the pictures were in defendant's possession when the warrant was issued.
The affidavit fulfills the second prong as well. Because the affidavit referred to two informants both must meet the reliability test. The affidavit supplies enough circumstances supporting the reliability of the child. It stated her long relationship with defendant. This relationship indicates that she was in an excellent position to know the truth of what she said. Cf. People v. Emmert, 76 Mich.App. 26, 31, 255 N.W.2d 757 (1977); People v. Chartrand, supra. Moreover, the child stated the approximate date and location of the photographing. She also described the events leading up to the photographing. Such specificity...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Russo
...453 N.W.2d 656 (1990); People v. Sundling, 153 Mich.App. 277, 395 N.W.2d 308 (1986), lv. den. 428 Mich. 887 (1987); People v. Osborn, 122 Mich.App. 63, 329 N.W.2d 533 (1982), concluding that pornography is used in connection with child molestation, for arousal and fantasy and as a means of ......
-
Behrel v. State
...if ever, dispose of their sexually explicit materials"), reh'g denied, 1993 Okla.Crim.App. LEXIS 3 (1993); People v. Osborn, 122 Mich.App. 63, 329 N.W.2d 533, 535 (1982) (finding that the "affidavit's allegations of a long history of sexual abuse between the child and defendant and the vict......
-
People v. Sundling
...sufficient to transform otherwise stale information into "fresh" probable cause. This case is distinguishable from People v. Osborn, 122 Mich.App. 63, 329 N.W.2d 533 (1982), where a warrant issued for the seizure of photographs was based on information that was 45 days old. In that case the......
-
Nolan v. Braman, 18-cv-00113
...that a crime is being committed but whether probable cause is sufficiently fresh to presume that the sought items remain on the premises. Id. determining whether the information is stale, this Court also considers factors such as the nature of the property sought, the place to be searched, ......