People v. Rea, Docket No. 10213
| Decision Date | 24 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 10213,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 195 N.W.2d 809,38 Mich.App. 141 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael James REA, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Robert S. Shulman, 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., Edward M. Babcock, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before QUINN, P.J., and J. H. GILLIS and VanVALKENBURG *, JJ.
Defendant was gound guilty by a jury of assault with intent to rape 1, and gross indecency. 2 He was sentenced to 9 to 10 years in prison on the assault count and 4 1/2 to 5 years in prison on the gross indecency count; the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal he asserts that error arose from the admission of hearsay evidence, that the assault with intent to rape verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that the gross indecency statute is unconstitutionally vague and that, in light of contemporary mores, cunnilingus is not grossly indecent behavior.
Hearsay testimony is generally not admissible because the essential right of cross-examination is absent; and, therefore, the jury is not afforded the opportunity to test the credibility of the person making the statement. People v. Chambers, 279 Mich. 73, 271 N.W. 556 (1937); People v. Trilck, 374 Mich. 118, 132 N.W.2d 134 (1965); People v. Logan, 17 Mich.App. 363, 169 N.W.2d 504 (1969). Any error resulting from the alleged hearsay testimony herein was rendered moot and harmless by the fact that the conversants were called as witnesses and were subject to cross-examination of defense counsel and the scrutiny of the jury.
There was ample evidence adduced at trial to support the verdict of assault with intent to commit rape.
The gross indecency statute is not constitutionally infirm because of vagueness. People v. Dexter, 6 Mich.App. 247, 148 N.W.2d 915 (1967).
This Court will not substitute its opinion as to whether an act is grossly indecent in the eyes of the community of a whole for that of a properly charged jury. The question of community mores is properly addressed to either the trier of fact or to the legislative branch of government. See People v. Haggerty, 27 Mich.App. 594, 183 N.W.2d 862 (1970).
Affirmed.
* WADE VanVALKENBURG, former Circuit Court Judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Livingston
...in Rodgers.4 See Jaxon v. Detroit Department of Street Railways, 379 Mich. 405, 413, 151 N.W.2d 813 (1967).5 See People v. Rea, 38 Mich.App. 141, 142, 195 N.W.2d 809 (1972).6 Dr. Danto also examined defendant for purposes of determining competency. Though People v. Martin, 386 Mich. 407, 19......
-
People v. Myers
...two females); People v. McCaleb, 37 Mich.App. 502, 195 N.W.2d 17 (1972), lv. den. 389 Mich. 784 (1973) (fellatio); People v. Rea, 38 Mich.App. 141, 195 N.W.2d 809 (1972), lv. den. 388 Mich. 795 (1972) (cunnilingus); People v. Roy Edwards, 58 Mich.App. 146, 227 N.W.2d 263 (1975), reversed in......
-
People v. Battle
...by defense counsel within the scrutiny of the jury. People v. King, 58 Mich.App. 390, 228 N.W.2d 391 (1975), People v. Rea, 38 Mich.App. 141, 195 N.W.2d 809 (1972), Lv. den., 388 Mich. 795 We have examined the remaining allegations of error and find them to be without merit. Affirmed. * WAD......
-
People v. Fell
...hearsay evidence is generally held inadmissible is because the defendant is denied the right of cross-examination. People v. Rea, 38 Mich.App. 141, 142, 195 N.W.2d 809 (1872), Iv. den., 388 Mich. 795 (1972). Where hearsay testimony has been admitted, People v. Kelley, 32 Mich.App. 126, 146,......