People v. Reedy
Decision Date | 04 August 1986 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 85666 |
Citation | 390 N.W.2d 215,151 Mich.App. 143 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Francis REEDY, Defendant-Appellant. 151 Mich.App. 143, 390 N.W.2d 215 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[151 MICHAPP 143] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. [151 MICHAPP 144] Caruso, Sol. Gen., William F. Lavoy, Pros. Atty., and Leslie J. Nearpass, Sp. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Marvin Blake, Dearborn, and Carl Ziemba, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Before KELLY, P.J., and BRONSON and SIMON *, JJ.
On August 24, 1984, a complaint was filed against defendant Edward Reedy, alleging that he had lied in a sworn affidavit for a search warrant, thereby commiting one count of perjury, M.C.L. Sec. 750.423; M.S.A. Sec. 28.665. After a preliminary examination, defendant was bound over for trial on the perjury charge, and an information was filed reciting verbatim the allegations from the complaint. Defendant filed a motion to quash the information, alleging that of the five allegations of perjury listed in the information, only one had been found at the preliminary examination to be supported by the requisite amount of evidence. Defendant's motion was denied by the circuit court judge and this Court granted leave to appeal.
This case had its inception on July 19, 1984, when Monroe County Sheriff's Deputy Mary Anne Ortman met the defendant, a Wayne County Sheriff's Deputy, at approximately 8 p.m. at a K-Mart parking lot. Michael Asam, a part-time farmer and confidential informant, was with the defendant. Deputy Ortman told the defendant that she had witnessed a drug transaction at a party store earlier that day and suspected another transaction was going to occur that night at a mobile home in Willow Green Trailer Park. The residents of the mobile home, Arnold and Joe Laney, were mentioned as possible drug suspects. Shortly thereafter,[151 MICHAPP 145] the defendant sent Asam to the trailer park to "reconnoiter" the area.
The defendant proceeded to call Randall Wells, another confidential informant, listed with the drug enforcement administration as SI-7-84-0077. Wells drove to the K-Mart where the defendant remained, and met with him around 8:30 p.m. No one else was present. The defendant asked Wells whether he knew a Mr. Laney and whether he would be able to buy drugs from him. Wells answered affirmatively to both questions and defendant gave him $100 with instructions to go to Laney's place, buy some drugs from him, and then come back. Wells, however, thought that the defendant had said "Dulaney" and drove to a trailer park looking for the wrong person. As he was driving, however, he found a white packet in his car which was left by a previous passenger and upon testing it, discovered it was cocaine. He drove back to the K-Mart, giving the defendant the packet and $20 "as change from the purchase", claiming that he had purchased the cocaine "from the person you had explained to me".
Defendant returned to the sheriff's department office and, with the help of Deputy Ortman, prepared a search warrant and affidavit in support which contained the following allegations:
Defendant then proceeded to the home of an assistant county prosecutor, who authorized a warrant. Defendant then took the affidavit to a district judge and swore that the contents of the affidavit were true. At approximately 12:30 a.m. the following morning, the defendant and other law enforcement officials executed a search warrant. The results of the search are not ascertainable from the record.
At the preliminary examination, several witnesses testified as to the relevant facts, reiterating the sequence of events set forth above. Randall Wells testified that, contrary to defendant's statements in his affidavit, defendant did not search him (Wells) before he left for the trailer park, except for a cursory pat-down. He also stated that to the best of his knowledge, he was never under surveillance. He recalled no search of any kind upon his return to the K-Mart, and denied making any statement as to his observing additional quantities of drugs at Laney's home. At the end of the preliminary examination, defendant was bound over for trial.
We are called upon in this case to examine what place the findings of the magistrate at the preliminary examination play at trial and how these findings are to be interpreted. An accused's right to a preliminary examination is provided for by [151 MICHAPP 147] M.C.L. Sec. 766.1; M.S.A. Sec. 28.919. The primary purpose of the preliminary examination is to establish whether there is probable cause supporting the accusation, thus justifying binding over the accused for trial. M.C.L. Sec. 766.13; M.S.A. Sec. 28.931; People v. Ship, 141 Mich.App. 610, 613, 367 N.W.2d 430 (1985). Thus, a finding of probable cause at the preliminary examination is a prerequisite to the proper filing of an information:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Jones
...trial court's decision regarding a motion to remand to the district court is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v. Reedy, 151 Mich.App. 143, 147, 390 N.W.2d 215 (1986); see also M.C.L. § 767.76. "This Court reviews a trial court's ruling regarding a motion to dismiss for an abuse o......
-
People v. Stricklin
...An information is presumed to be framed with reference to the facts disclosed at the preliminary examination. People v. Reedy, 151 Mich.App. 143, 390 N.W.2d 215 (1986). Consequently, the trial court's instructions to the jury effectively amended the information against Richard Stricklin fol......
-
People v. Taylor
...and a defect in the waiver exists (for example, if the waiver was made without the benefit of counsel). See People v. Reedy, 151 Mich.App. 143, 147, 390 N.W.2d 215 (1986) ; People v. Skowronek, 57 Mich.App. 110, 113, 226 N.W.2d 74 (1975). The circuit court may also remand the case if the pr......