People v. Robertson, Docket No. 78-66
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 87 Mich.App. 109,273 N.W.2d 501 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reginald A. ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 78-66 |
| Decision Date | 20 October 1978 |
Page 501
v.
Reginald A. ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Released for Publication Jan. 12, 1979.
Page 502
[87 Mich.App. 111] Edwards & Edwards by Sharon Lee Edwards, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward R. Wilson, Appellate Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before KAUFMAN, P. J., and MAHER and RILEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his jury conviction of two counts of second-degree murder, M.C.L. § 750.317; M.S.A. § 28.549, claiming three errors that deprived him of a fair trial.
First he contends that the court erred in denying his motion for mistrial. We do not agree. The grant or denial of a mistrial motion rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge and relief is merited only after a finding of abuse of that discretion. People v. Mitchell, 61 Mich.App. 153, 165, 232 N.W.2d 340 (1975), People v. Talaga, 37 Mich.App. 100, 102-103, 194 N.W.2d 462 (1971). To find reversible error, the trial court's denial of defendant's mistrial motion must have been so gross as to [87 Mich.App. 112] have deprived him of a fair trial and to have resulted in 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.
Here, in the course of recross-examination of the prosecution's key witness, defense counsel learned that he had once represented the witness in an unrelated matter. He promptly moved for a mistrial but set forth no reasons why his client had been prejudiced. After taking the motion under advisement and failing to receive any supporting brief from defense counsel, the court denied the motion. On this record we cannot say that the court abused its discretion, that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial resulting in a miscarriage of justice or, as defendant also charges, that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. Defendant claims that because of the revelation of counsel's prior brief representation of the prosecution's witness he was not able to perform at least as well as a lawyer of ordinary training and skill in criminal law in that he was unable to thoroughly cross-examine the witness. He argues that defense counsel was not able to represent him undeflected by conflicting considerations. The record indicates otherwise.
Defense counsel cross-examined the witness extensively before the inadvertent disclosure. Further, there is no showing of any conflict that affected the scope or depth of cross-examination or quality of representation.
Defendant next argues that the evidence adduced at trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Britt, No. S-14-551.
...(Fla. App. 1988); State v. Linscott, 521 A.2d 701 (Me. 1987); Ellison v. State, 310 Md. 244, 528 A.2d 1271 (1987); People v Robertson, 87 Mich. App. 109, 273 N.W.2d 501 (1978); State v. Pearsall, 38 N.C. App. 600, 248 S.E.2d 436 (1978); State v. Crislip, 110 N.M. 412, 796 P.2d 1108 (N.M. Ap......
-
State v. Britt, No. S–14–551.
...(Fla.App.1988) ; State v. Linscott, 521 A.2d 701 (Me.1987) ; Ellison v. State, 310 Md. 244, 528 A.2d 1271 (1987) ; People v. Robertson, 87 Mich.App. 109, 273 N.W.2d 501 (1978) ; State v. Pearsall, 38 N.C.App. 600, 248 S.E.2d 436 (1978) ; State v. Crislip, 110 N.M. 412, 796 P.2d 1108 (N.M.Ap......
-
Ellison v. State, 3
...State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152, 102 S.Ct. 1022, 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982); People v. Robertson, 87 Mich.App. 109, 273 N.W.2d 501, 503 (1978); People v. Lindsay, 69 Mich.App. 720, 245 N.W.2d 343, 344 (1976); Knight v. Maybee, 44 Misc.2d 152, 253 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Martin v. Flanagan, (SC 16453)
...with regard to matters underlying those charges while ... a direct appeal or sentence review is pending"); People v. Robertson, 87 Mich. App. 109, 114, 273 N.W.2d 501 (1978) ("it is clear that the privilege against self-incrimination still applies where an appeal is pending after conviction......
-
State v. Britt, No. S-14-551.
...(Fla. App. 1988); State v. Linscott, 521 A.2d 701 (Me. 1987); Ellison v. State, 310 Md. 244, 528 A.2d 1271 (1987); People v Robertson, 87 Mich. App. 109, 273 N.W.2d 501 (1978); State v. Pearsall, 38 N.C. App. 600, 248 S.E.2d 436 (1978); State v. Crislip, 110 N.M. 412, 796 P.2d 1108 (N.M. Ap......
-
State v. Britt, No. S–14–551.
...(Fla.App.1988) ; State v. Linscott, 521 A.2d 701 (Me.1987) ; Ellison v. State, 310 Md. 244, 528 A.2d 1271 (1987) ; People v. Robertson, 87 Mich.App. 109, 273 N.W.2d 501 (1978) ; State v. Pearsall, 38 N.C.App. 600, 248 S.E.2d 436 (1978) ; State v. Crislip, 110 N.M. 412, 796 P.2d 1108 (N.M.Ap......
-
Ellison v. State, 3
...State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152, 102 S.Ct. 1022, 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982); People v. Robertson, 87 Mich.App. 109, 273 N.W.2d 501, 503 (1978); People v. Lindsay, 69 Mich.App. 720, 245 N.W.2d 343, 344 (1976); Knight v. Maybee, 44 Misc.2d 152, 253 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Martin v. Flanagan, (SC 16453)
...with regard to matters underlying those charges while ... a direct appeal or sentence review is pending"); People v. Robertson, 87 Mich. App. 109, 114, 273 N.W.2d 501 (1978) ("it is clear that the privilege against self-incrimination still applies where an appeal is pending after conviction......