People v. Ritholz

Decision Date06 June 1960
Docket NumberNo. 79,79
Citation359 Mich. 539,103 N.W.2d 481
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin D. RITHOLZ, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

James E. Haggerty, Detroit, Victor C. Anderson, Lansing, Harry M. Nayer, Stanley E. Beattie, Detroit, for appellant.

Paul L. Adams, Atty. Gen., Samuel J. Torina, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Irving B. Beattie, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before the Entire Bench, except KAVANAGH, SOURIS and CARR, JJ.

SMITH, Justice.

This appeal arises from a prosecution for corruptly offering money to influence the action of three public officers, members of the board of examiners in optometry. 1 It is not denied that money in fact changed hands. The defendant, however, asserts that the money was not offered with corrupt intent. He says that he paid it over to terminate a scheme of extortion. This the jury disbelieved. He was found guilty, a fine was thereupon imposed, and he was sentenced to imprisonment for a terms of years.

The defendant was a partner in King Optical Company. This company had an office in Lansing adjacent to the office of Dr. E. L. Sanchick. It was the practice of King Optical Company to refer patients coming to it, in response to its newspaper advertisements, to any doctor in the city, 'or to the doctor who leases space next door to us or adjacent to our office.' The Michigan board of examiners in optometry (hereinafter called the board) had brought certain charges against Dr. Sanchick as a result of his relations with King Optical Company 2 and it is with respect to defendant's alleged efforts to have the Sanchick case 'washed out' by the board that much of the testimony is concerned.

The defendant had first met Dr. Feiler, according to the latter, in Chicago in 1949 or 1950. Since that time they had intermittent contacts. In October of 1951 they met in Chicago with respect to a patent matter. I the following month, November, Dr. Feiler was appointed to the board. The next meeting between defendant and Dr. Feiler was in 1952 or 1953. Dr. Feiler's version of this meeting is that it had to do with defendant's difficulties in his contact lens laboratory in Chicago, for advices concerning which he, Dr. Feiler, was paid the sum of $350. Defendant's version is that Dr. Feiler came to him, demanded money as the price of peace (with the Michigan board, of which he was now a member), and so received the said sum. Defendant made no report of this to the board, the Illinois police, the Michigan police, or any other law-enforcement agency.

Their next meeting occurred in 1953. Dr. Feiler testified that the meeting related to the sale of some contact lenses belonging to a Dr. Golden, that the sale did not eventuate, and that he was paid his travel expenses by Dr. Golden. Defendant's version was that this, also, was the occasion of further extortion, that Dr. Feiler had said, 'You give me $500 or else I'll put you out of business,' which sum was thereupon paid over. Again, there was no report by the defendant to the authorities of any jurisdiction of the demands allegedly being made upon him, now, apparently, as a matter of course.

In Chicago, in August or September of 1954, another meeting allegedly occurred. Although Dr. Feiler denies the meeting, defendant asserts that it was the occasion for another demand for money, specifically for $15,000, $5,000 for each of the three members of the board. This demand was allegedly overheard by a friend of defendant, Dr. Brill, who testified to that effect. As before, no report of the demand was made to the police.

The Sanchick matter, concerning which the alleged bribe was paid, comes into the record in November of 1954. Dr. Feiler's testimony was that defendant called him, asked him about the Sanchick case and said 'he would like to have this washed out.' Defendant's version, again, is at variance. It was Dr. Feiler who called him, he says, and again it was a demand for money, this time for $15,000. Defendant resisted. He replied, he says, that he 'wasn't going to be shaken down any more.'

In January of 1955, Dr. Feiler testified, defendant again called him regarding the Sanchick case, stating, it was said, that it would be worth three or four thousand dollars to have it 'washed out.' Dr. Feiler testified that he responded that he could do nothing about it but defendant asked that they meet to discuss the matter. Dr. Feiler at this point notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the matter, who, in turn, we gather , notified the State police. When defendant and Dr. Feiler then met, on January 12, 1955, in the Sheraton Cadillac Hotel, the police had installed a microphone and the conversation was monitored by them. Upon cross-examination the defendant admitted that he had at that time asked Dr. Feiler if he could do anything for Dr. Sanchick. When Dr. Feiler responded, at a later point, 'I don't understand just quite what it is you want me to do,' the defendant replied, 'I want you to do just like anything else. You know what to do. Find a way to wash it out. Instead of the lawyers getting the money I give it to you. It's just as simple as that.' The defendant further stated, in the course of their conversation, that if the board was going to push him (defendant) around that he was going to start a little pushing himself, as he had done in Indiana. There, he said, he had 'filed a suit in Federal Court for a million and a half, suing each member of the Board and each member of the Association and all of their officers of the Association personally, not as an Assocation.' He went on, describing his actions, 'I wasn't very nice in Indiana. I was a bastard. I had the Secretary of the Board on the witness stand. I only started with him. I was going to keep him on for 3 weeks, day in and day out.' He questioned Dr. Feiler thus: 'If I start a number of suits like I did in Indiana, do they [the board members] scare pretty good?'

The next meeting of the defendant with Dr. Feiler in Detroit was late in March. On the 27th day of this month Dr. Feiler reported to the board members that defendant wished another meeting with him to discuss further the Sanchick case. This meeting was held at the Statler Hotel, the respective versions again opposing bribery (Feiler) against extortion (defendant). Although arrangements had been made to meet the next day, at the board meeting the following morning Dr. Feiler was advised by an officer of the State police, and the board, to have no furhter contact with the defendant. Nevertheless he did meet with defendant at a clothing store in Detroit, at which time and place the defendant put in his pocket an envelope later found to contain the sum of $500. This incident Dr. Feiler did not report to any proper authority until the following September when he turned the money over to the State police and informed an assistant attorney general of the matter. For his derelictions in connection therewith he was later removed from office by the Governor.

Various telephone conversations having been had between Dr. Feiler and defendant, and reported by Dr. Feiler to State police officers, he was asked to attend a meeting in Lansing to discuss the matter with an assistant attorney general. Dr. Feiler stated in part that he had been requested by defendant 'to get in touch with him' and he was authorized to call defendant in Chicago. This call was monitored by the State police. Dr. Feiler asked if he (defendant) 'was going to bring the stuff with him,' to which defendant replied, 'I'm not paying for anything in advance, not until the goods are delivered.' Defendant said he was going to be in Detroit that week-end and would contract Dr. Feiler later.

On Sunday, August 7, defendant prepared to meet with Dr. Feiler in the Statler Hotel in Detroit. He had hired Pinkerton detectives and was prepared to record the transaction. Dr. Feiler, however, acting under instructions, did not appear but, rather, telephoned excuses and set up a meeting at the Olds Hotel in Lansing for the following night. To Dr. Feiler's inquiry as to whether defendant was prepared 'to take care of this thing' the next night, defendant responded that he was not going to Lansing for a joy ride. Defendant thereupon instructed the Pinkerton detectives to meet him the next night at the Olds Hotel in Lansing and to use a suite he had reserved.

We now come, at long last, to the happenings at the Olds Hotel on the night of August 8, the date and place of the alleged offense of bribery. Dr. Feiler, the other members of the board, and defendant were in one room. In an adjoining room were the Pinkerton detectives hired by defendant, with their tape recording equipment.

In a room nearby were the State police officers. Defendant took charge of the meeting. He said that they were meeting 'to see if we can work something out so we will have a little bit of a truce.' He made reference to the Sanchick case, and to the antitrust suit he had filed. He spoke of his lawyers in the latter matter and how they were 'cleaning up on both of us.' We continue with the record. The defendant is testifying on cross-examination:

'Q. And did you then say, 'I am going to spend money on lawyers. There is no question about it. I would rather spend it some other way. Do you want me to discuss it with you gentlemen? Or with Julian'? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. And did Dr. Feiler say, 'They are here, and they understand the deal. I want to get out of here. I am not going to stay all night'? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. And did you say, 'All right. We can finish in 5 minutes. I am prepared to pay you $5,000'? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. And did Dr. Grigware say, 'Apiece?' A. Pardon?

'Q. Did Dr. Grigware say, 'Apiece?' A. Yes, sir.

'Q. Asking a question, and did you say, 'No, five thousand is the money I've got allotted to spend. Rather than spending it on lawyers, I would rather give it to you'? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. And did Dr. Grigware say, 'What do you want in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • People v. Hall, Docket No. 3902
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • August 28, 1969
    ...People v. Cona (1914), 180 Mich. 641, 652, 147 N.W. 525. People v. Harris (1942), 300 Mich. 463, 2 N.W.2d 464; People v. Ritholz (1960), 359 Mich. 539, 103 N.W.2d 481.4 'All unnecessary allegations shall be rejected as surplusage.' M.C.L.A. § 767.47 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.987.)5 Actually,......
  • People v. Allen
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • March 8, 1988
    ...that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial and resulted in a conviction that was a miscarriage of justice. People v. Ritholz, 359 Mich. 539, 559, 103 N.W.2d 481 (1960); M.C.L. § 769.26; M.S.A. § 28.1096. A volunteered and unresponsive answer to a proper question is generally not cause f......
  • Grand Jury Proceedings No. 93,164, In re
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • September 22, 1970
    ...question propounded by the grand juror would have provided an essential element of the offense of bribery. See People v. Ritholz (1960), 359 Mich. 539, 552, 103 N.W.2d 481. See, also, 3 Gillespie, Criminal Law & Procedure, ch. Although the People candidly recognize this point, they argue th......
  • People v. Stergowski
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1974
    ...possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.' This language in Chimel had been anticipated by our Courts. In People v. Ritholz, 359 Mich. 539, 551, 103 N.W.2d 481 (1960), the Court noted that the defendant had been properly arrested under M.C.L.A. § 764.15; M.S.A. § 'Such being the case......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT