People v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 24 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Docket No. 3153,3 |
| Citation | 160 N.W.2d 744,11 Mich.App. 162 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Walter B. Freihofer, Vander Veen, Freihofer & Cook, Grand Rapids, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Lansing, Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, James K. Miller, Pros. Atty., Kent County, Grand Rapids, for appellee.
Before JOHN W. FITZGERALD, BURNS, and N. E. FITZGERALD *, JJ.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of armed robbery ** and appeals.
Defendant and Richard Nelson were customers riding in Francis W. Forsythe's taxicab. Before these passengers arrived at their destination, Nelson, who was sitting in the right rear seat, ordered Forsythe to stop. Forsythe testified that after a discussion concerning the fare, the one on the right (Nelson) said, 'Well, give it to us.' When Forsythe turned around Nelson had a gun raised. The other person said, 'Just give us the loot.' Forsythe took his money from his shirt pocket and handed it to the party behind him. Forsythe testified as follows:
'Q. (prosecuting attorney) Go ahead now. You were at the point where you said you turned around and saw a gun toward you?
'A. Yes.
'Q. Start there and tell what happened.
'A. Then I looked and the other voice said, 'Just give us the loot.' So I reached for my shirt pocket which I had the bills in and handed them back.
' .
The defendant claims that he had already stepped out of the cab when the holdup took place and that Nelson was the sole participant in the crime.
The defendant was arrested and demanded preliminary examination, at the conclusion of which the case was dismissed for lack of probable cause. The defendant was later rearrested and, at the conclusion of the second preliminary examination, bound over to circuit court for trial.
The defendant first claims that the dismissal of the original case for lack of probable cause bars a subsequent prosecution on the theory of Res judicata. This theory was answered in People v. Miklovich (1965), 375 Mich. 536 on page 539, 134 N.W.2d 720 on page 722. The Court said:
'The discharge by an examining magistrate upon examination of a person accused of a crime is not a bar to his subsequent arrest, examination and trial for the same offense because he has not been placed in jeopardy.'
Defendant claims the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to ask Forsythe on redirect examination what Nelson was doing when Forsythe was handing the money back. Defense counsel on cross-examination had questioned Forsythe concerning the possibility of Nelson having held the rifle in one hand. The prosecution on redirect elicited testimony from Forsythe that Nelson had been holding the rifle in two hands. The prosecution merely brought out more fully facts inquired into by defense counsel on cross-examination. This was not error. People v. Parker (1943), 307 Mich. 372, 11 N.W.2d 924.
During Robinson's trial Nelson testified contrary to the testimony which he gave at his own trial. The prosecution used the transcript from Nelson's trial to impeach his testimony and refresh his memory. After Nelson's direct examination and prior to defense counsel's cross-examination, the trial judge instructed the jury to the effect that Nelson's testimony at his own trial could not be used as proof against the defendant. One sentence in the instruction was:
'What it was permitted to be used for was to test this man's credibility and refresh his memory, if it needed refreshing, as to what the real facts were.'
Defense counsel argues that the last phrase of the foregoing sentence was an implication by the judge that he believed Nelson was telling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Poe
...the jury that there is a presumption that a witness speaks the truth. A jury instruction must be read as a whole. People v. Robinson (1968), 11 Mich.App. 162, 160 N.W.2d 744. When the court's instruction is read in its entirety, it is clear that the jury was informed of a number of factors ......
-
People v. McClure, Docket No. 6257
...established by one portion separated from the whole charge unless that portion would prejudice the entire charge. People v. Robinson (1968), 11 Mich.App. 162, 160 N.W.2d 744. A review of the record in this case shows that the defendant's requested instructions were given verbatim by the cou......
-
People v. Green, Docket No. 10701
...cannot be established by one phrase lifted from the whole charge, unless the phrase prejudices the entire charge. People v. Robinson (1968), 11 Mich.App. 162, 160 N.W.2d 744. Careful reading of the entire charge to the jury leads to the conclusion that the charge was not in any way prejudic......
-
People v. Johnson, Docket No. 13549
...well be prejudicial. But as this Court has observed before, the charge to the jury must be read as a whole. People v. Robinson, 11 Mich.App. 162, 165, 160 N.W.2d 744 (1968). Included in the charge to the jury was the 'If one without just cause inflicts a wrong upon another, we call him mali......