People v. Scott

• Decision Date: 14 November 1975
• Docket Number: Docket No. 22829
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry Lee SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant. 65 Mich.App. 657, 237 N.W.2d 602
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 602

237 N.W.2d 602

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry Lee SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 22829.

65 Mich.App. 657, 237 N.W.2d 602

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Nov. 14, 1975.

Released for Publication Jan. 30, 1976.

[65 MICHAPP 658] James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William C. Buhl, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before ALLEN, P.J., and DANHOF and CAVANAGH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On April 18, 1974, Henry Lee Scott was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery. M.C.L.A. § 750.529; M.S.A. § 28.797. He was sentenced to a term of a minimum of 10 years to a maximum of 20 years in prison on June 17, 1974.

The first issue raised on appeal is whether certain comments by the prosecutor in his closing argument amounted to reversible error by denying the defendant a fair trial.

The defendant did not object at the trial to the comments made by the prosecutor in his closing argument.

People v. McLendon, 51 Mich.App. 543, 547, 215 N.W.2d 742, 744 (1974), states the applicable standard of review:

'The general rule in Michigan is that a defendant's failure to object to allegedly improper remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument precludes appellate review unless it can be said that an objection and the appropriate curative instruction could not have eliminated the prejudice arising from the prosecutor's statements. People v. Tarpley, 41 Mich.App. 227, 199 N.W.2d 839 (1972), People v. Humphreys, 24 Mich.App. 411, 180 N.W.2d 328 (1970).'

Further, a prosecutor's remarks must be read in the context in which they are made, including his closing argument as a whole and the evidence admitted at trial. People v. Cowell, 44 Mich.App. 623, 627, 205 N.W.2d 600 (1973).

If there was any prejudice to the defendant left uncorrected, it is apparent from the record that a timely objection and an appropriate instruction could have cured it. However, a review of the record indicates that the prejudicial remarks of the prosecutor, if any, were not such as to deny the defendant a fair trial. When read in context, [65 MICHAPP 660] some of the claimed prejudicial remarks amounted to no more than an unfortunate choice of words. Other remarks were counterbalanced by the cautionary statements of the trial court and the prosecutor not to consider the arguments of attorneys as evidence. Finally, there was strong direct and circumstantial evidence against the defendant. Under these facts and the applicable standard set forth above, no reversible error occurred in the instant case. ¹

The next issue raised is whether it was reversible error to introduce evidence of the defendant's association with another man identified as one of the robbers.

The defendant did object to admission of such evidence at trial on the grounds of relevancy but the evidence was admitted over objection.

Absent a countervailing policy, association may have sufficient probative value to allow its admission to prove identity. People v. Bailey, 36 Mich.App. 272, 277--278, 193 N.W.2d 405 (1971). Association is especially probative where it is 'interconnected' with other proofs. See dissent by Levin, J., Supra, at 285, 193 N.W.2d 405.

In the present case, evidence of the defendant's association with another man is interconnected with other proofs. The police picked up the defendant a short time after the robbery in a car driven by the other man. There was evidence that a description of that car and its license number had been given to...