People v. Ryckman

• Decision Date: 29 December 1943
• Docket Number: Nos. 86,87.,s. 86
• Citation: 307 Mich. 631,12 N.W.2d 487
• Parties: PEOPLE v. RYCKMAN et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

307 Mich. 631

12 N.W.2d 487

PEOPLE

v.RYCKMAN et al.

Nos. 86, 87.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 29, 1943.

Arthur Ryckman and others were convicted of conspiring to obstruct justice, and they appeal.

Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Earl C. Pugsley, judge.

Before the Entire Bench.

George W. Schudlich, of Detroit, for appellants Arthur Ryckman, Frank Dombecky, Marion Ratliff.

Frederick J. Plotts, of Detroit (John G. Jefferson, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants John Aitken, Joseph Whalen, Glenn D. McLean.

Herbert J. Rushton, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., of Lansing, and Thomas A. Kenney and Daniel J. O'Hara, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

STARR, Justice.

Upon jury trial defendants Arthur Ryckman, Frank Dombecky, Marion Ratliff, John Aitken, Joseph Whalen, and Glenn D. McLean were convicted under the second count of an information charging them and others with a conspiracy to obstruct justice, and were sentenced as follows: Ryckman and Dombecky, each 18 months to five years; Ratliff, six months to five years; Aitken, Whalen, and McLean, each two years probation and $500 costs. Their respective motions for new trials were denied, and, having obtained leave, they appeal. Their cases come to us upon the record presented in the separate appeals of John W. Roxborough and other defendants. In this opinion we consider only the appeals of the six above-named defendants, all of whom were police officers of the city of Detroit. It is unnecessary to state the facts leading up to their indictment, trial, and conviction, as such facts are set forth in our opinion in the case of People v. Roxborough, 12 N.W.2d 466, decided herewith, and other cases therein referred to.

Defendants contend that the verdicts of the jury were against the weight of the evidence. Prior to his appointment as an inspector in 1938, defendant Ryckman was a lieutenant in the police department. It is unnecessary to narrate in detail the testimony presented against him. Suffice it to say that two witnesses who were connected with or engaged in the so-called mutuel or policy business testified that they paid various sums of money to Ryckman. From their testimony it may reasonably be inferred that such payments were for police protection. There was also testimony that, following his appointment as an inspector, Ryckman paid substantial sums of money to one Boettcher, who had recommended his appointment and that such payments were divided between codefendants Reading and Ryan and other persons. Ryckman did not take the stand in his own defense.

A witness who was engaged in the so-called numbers business in the ‘sixth precinct’ in which defendant Dombecky was an inspector of police testified in part as follows:

‘I first met Mr. Frank Dombecky in January, 1939. * * *

‘After that meeting * * * I paid Mr. Dombecky $100 a month * * * until August, 1939. * * * I paid him this money for protection. * * *

‘I would put it in the glove compartment of his automobile. * * * I knew it was his car. * * *

‘I met Inspector Dombecky * * * at the Falcon hall at a party given in his honor. * * * We just talked about things in general and he told me he would call me or I would call him some time. * * *

‘It was possibly a week after the party that I received this telephone call, * * * and the instructions that I received were that a certain car would be parked in front of the restaurant, and to put $100 in the glove compartment of the car, within the half hour, and I went right over with the money. Each and every month thereafter I got the same call from the same voice, * * * I would just go over there myself and see the car and put it (money) in. * * *

‘I received Mr. Dombecky's license number from him, which I checked against the license of the car once or twice, that Mr. Dombecky was driving when I saw him, and which was the car in which I had placed the $100 in the glove compartment.’

Defendnt Dombecky did not take the stand, and such testimony regarding payments made to him for police protection stands uncontradicted.

Defendant Ratliff was a police officer on the so-called ‘clean-up squad’ in the 13th precinct. Two witnesses who were engaged in the numbers or policy business testified that they paid Ratliff sums of money, and from the circumstances shown it may reasonably be inferred that such payments were for police protection. Defendant Ratliff did not take the stand, and such testimony stands uncontradicted. The testimony of certain witnesses relative to their identification of defendants Ryckman and Ratliff in the court room could be considered by the jury in determining the guilt or innocence of such defendants.

One Fitzgerald, a police officer and member of the so-called racket squad assigned to the policy and numbers business, testified against defendants Aitken, Whalen, and McLean, in part as follows:

‘I had conversation with Joseph Whalen * * * with reference to taking money as a member of the racket squad. * * * Whalen and I talked about different fellows that were collecting money and we thought we might as well get in. * * *

‘I have identified Mike Novak and I got money from him between February and August of 1939 about once a month. Whalen, McLean, Buck, Lester and Aitken went with me when I made those collections and we received $10 apiece. * * *

‘Whalen, * * * McLean, Aitken, * * * and myself got $5 apiece from Mosley (who operated a mutuel and policy business) from February to August, 1939. * * *

‘Hovey Cox’ place * * * was a candy store, I believe, and, Whalen, * * * McLean, and sometimes Aitken went up there with me on occasions and we would get $10 apiece from Cox, once a month from February to August of 1939. * * *

‘I collected money from the Yellow Dog mutuel house from a fellow named Carter. Whalen, McLean, * * * and Aitken went with me on several occasions and we all received $5 each month per man during February to August, 1939. To make these collections, anybody that was on the squad including myself, Whalen, Buck or Aitken, would go up to that address in the police car, ask for Carter, who ran a barber shop, * * * and he would come out and pay us the $5 in cash to the closest man to him of the men in the car. * * * We went to River Rouge on Eagle street also several months during that period to collect moneys. * * *

‘I know Walter Norwood. He was in the mutuel business on Adams. * * * ‘Whalen, * * * McLean and Aitken * * * as well as myself were getting $5 per man per month from Norwood. * * *

‘When we first went to get the money from Claude Roxborough * * * McLean and Aitken told us to drive up in the alley in back of some kind of real estate office on Beacon and Hastings. * * * There was just a conversation about these different numbers houses running and they were paying off every month, so we go out and get ours. * * * A written list of addresses was given to us, written by Whalen.’

A witness engaged in the mutuel and policy business testified that he paid Whalen $10 a month when Whalen was on the racket squad. Another witness engaged in the numbers business testified that on several occasions he paid $20 to two police officers in a car and, in identifying defendant Aitken as one of such officers, he said:

‘I pointed Aitken out here today. * * *

‘The man Aitken that I pointed out here in this court room today is the man Aitken that came on up to my numbers house and took money along with Dave Lester. * * *

‘I think it is the man; I am not sure; I don't remember him wearing glasses, but I think he is the man.’

Defendants Aitken, Whalen, and McLean each took the stand in his own behalf and in substance denied the testimony presented against him and also denied that he had collected or received any money for police protection. Other police officers called as defense witnesses testified in substance that they had worked with defendants Aitken, Whalen, and McLean and never saw them take any money from policy or numbers operators.

The above-discussed and other testimony certainly presented questions of fact for jury consideration as to the guilt or innocense of these defendants. It saw and heard defendants and other witnesses and was in a better position to determine their credibility and the weight to be accorded their testimony. There was evidence from which the jury as judge of the facts could find these six defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense charged agatinst them. The factual situation presented in the case of People v. Hepner, 285 Mich. 631, 281 N.W. 384, cited and relied upon by defendants, clearly distinguishes it from the present cases.

Defendants' contention, that the circuit court for Wayne county did not have jurisdiction of the offense charged, is determined adversely to them in our opinion in People v. Watson, 12 N.W.2d 476, decided herewith.

Certain of these defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motions for new trials based upon an alleged prejudicial statement by the prosecutor in his opening to the jury that other defendants had pleaded guilty. A similar motion was made by codefendant Everett I. Watson. For the...