People v. Schoonover

Decision Date23 February 1943
Docket NumberNo. 96.,96.
PartiesPEOPLE v. SCHOONOVER et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Daniel Schoonover and others were convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice, and they appeal.

Affirmed.Appeal from Recorders Court of Detroit; Donald Van Zile, judge.

Before the Entire Bench.

Schmier, Karbel & Eiges, of Detroit, for Daniel M. Schoonover, appellant.

Charles L. Bartlett, of Detroit, for appellants.

Herbert J. Rushton, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., and William E. Dowling, Pros. Atty., Wallace A. Temple, Asst. Pros. Atty., and Henrietta E. Rosenthal, Asst. Pros. Atty., all of Detroit, for the People.

STARR, Justice.

Defendants, who had been Detroit police officers, were convicted on jury trial under an information charging them with the common-law offense of a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Such information charged, in part, that between April 24 and September 25, 1940, these defendants and other persons:

‘Knowingly conspired together * * * wilfully, corruptly and unlawfully to obstruct the due course of justice in the case of the People of the State of Michigan v. John Roxborough, et al., then pending on examination before Homer Ferguson, one of the circuit judges of Wayne county, acting as a magistrate and conservator of the peace, wherein the charge was conspiracy to obstruct justice and in which the said Daniel Schoonover, John Lochridge, George W. Scharf (defendants in the present case) Peter F. Scally, Alfred Parry, Charles Flynn, Noble Magness, Bernard Nosseck, Alphone Kemper, John Doe, Richard Roe and Harry Doe were some of the defendants, by then and there enticing, soliciting, and persuading one Charles Bethel, a witness for the People of the State of Michigan upon said examination, to absent himself from the county of Wayne and to get out of the State of Michigan and beyond the jurisdiction of the said magistrate and not appearas a witness at said examination and give evidence therein for the People of the State of Michigan concerning the crime then and there being examined into in said cause, and they, the said defendants and co-conspirators, did then and there spirit away and cause to be spirited away from the jurisdiction of said court the said Charles Bethel, they, the said defendants and co-conspirators, then and there well knowing that he was a material witness in said examination for the People of the State of Michigan and then and there well knowing that he was waiting to appear as a witness at said examination; whereby the said Charles Bethel did not appear at said court and give evidence at said examination for and on behalf of the People and against some of the defendants in that cause.’

The case of the People v. Roxborough, et al., referred to in the above information, arose out of the grand-jury investigation in 1939 and 1940 of gambling, graft, and other crime in Wayne county. One Charles Bethel, by his testimony before the grand jury, and implicated the present defendants in the conspiracy charged in the Roxborough case. Defendants had been arrested, and Bethel was to be the ‘principal witness' for the prosecution in their preliminary examinations in that case. Such preliminary examinations were continued from time to time, and on June 25, 1940, defendants were discharged because the prosecution was unable to find Bethel and could not proceed without his testimony. It appears that in September, 1940, the prosecution located witness Bethel in New Jersey; that he was returned to Detroit; and that these defendants were subsequently arrested and held for trial on the above-mentioned information.

The trial of these and other defendants continued for about seven weeks. At the conclusion of the People's proofs the trial court discharged defendant Peter F. Scally. At the conclusion of all proofs, on motion of the prosecution, the trial court entered an order of nolle prosequi as to defendant Mary Schoonover (wife of defendant Daniel Schoonover). The jury acquitted defendant Parry and found the three appellants, Schoonover, Scharf, and Lochridge, guilty as charged. They were sentenced, their motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial was denied, and, having obtained leave, they appeal.

These defendants had been police officers connected with the Hunt street station of the Detroit police department, and witness Bethel had operated a restaurant in the vicinity of such station. There was testimony indicating the prior to their dismissal in the Roxborough case these defendants had contacted Bethel for the purpose of inducing him not to testify against them at their preliminary examinations. They had meetings with him; they endeavored to get him a job; they threatened him, gave him money, food, and drink, and did get his girl friend a job. They induced him to go to the office of defendant Schoonover's attorney and there make an affidavit contradicting his grand-jury testimony against defendants. About June 21, 1940, defendant Schoonover met Bethel at the home of Dr. and Mrs. DeNike, who were close friends of Schoonover. Defendants Scharf and Lochridge were outside the DeNike house at the time of such meeting. By direct and indirect promises and threats Bethel was induced to leave the city, and that night Schoonover and Dr. DeNike drove Bethel to DeNike's cottage at Lakeville, Oakland county. Bethel was instructed to remain in seclusion at such cottage. On June 25, 1940, these defendants and others were discharged as defendants in the Roxborough case, because the prosecution could not find witness Bethel. A day or two after defendants were discharged, it was arranged that Bethel should leave the State and go to New Jersey, and defendants and the DeNikes supplied him with a railroad ticket and with clothing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Panknin
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • 26 Julio 1966
    ...upon a proper complaint, because the dismissal on examination did not constitute his being placed in jeopardy. People v. Schoonover (1943), 304 Mich. 355, 361, 8 N.W.2d 95. See, also, Gaffney v. Circuit Judge, (1891), 85 Mich. 138, 48 N.W. The facts pertaining to the other questions raised ......
  • People v. Hayden
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • 18 Mayo 1994
    ...People v. Kennedy, 384 Mich. 339, 183 N.W.2d 297 (1971); People v. Miklovich, 375 Mich. 536, 134 N.W.2d 720 (1965); People v. Schoonover, 304 Mich. 355, 8 N.W.2d 95 (1943); People v. Laslo, 78 Mich.App. 257, 259 N.W.2d 448 (1977); People v. Riley, 72 Mich.App. 299, 249 N.W.2d 397 (1976). Sp......
  • Besh v. Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 23 Febrero 1943
    ......There was also medical and lay testimony indicating that plaintiff had suffered a change in personality; that he could not associate with people; and that his health was generally broken. Dr. Yesayian testified, in part: ‘He (plaintiff) has not been able to do any work. I would say that he ......
  • People v. Heading, Docket Nos. 9264
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • 21 Marzo 1972
    ...the preparation and presentation of their case. See People v. Lee (1943), 307 Mich. 743, 750, 12 N.W.2d 418; People v. Schoonover (1943), 304 Mich. 355, 362, 8 N.W.2d 95; and People v. Tailson (1970), 21 Mich.App. 459, 463, 175 N.W.2d 519. Prior to their joint arrest, Miss Weisheim had spen......

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