People v. Seales
| Decision Date | 26 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 4437,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 16 Mich.App. 572,168 N.W.2d 428 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlton N. SEALES, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Martin M. Summer, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Wayne County, Thomas P. Smith, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and BRONSON and R. B. BURNS, JJ.
Defendant was tried before a jury for unlawful possession of marijuana.* On direct examination, defendant testified that during their confinement at the police station his friend Alvin Taylor told him he (Taylor) had thrown away a package retrieved by police officers and found to contain marijuana. On cross-examination the prosecutor asked defendant if he '* * * advised them (the police) of what Taylor told you?' Defense counsel promptly moved for a mistrial on the ground that this violated defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. The court denied the motion. During jury argument the prosecutor stated: 'Now, the normal thing would have been that if he (defendant) was being accused of having marijuana and someone had admitted having marijuana, he would advise the police officer.' Defendant's objection was overruled and the prosecutor then stated:
These remarks constituted prejudicial comment upon defendant's prior exercise of his well-recognized right to remain silent in the face of accusation or interrogation. Defendant was not required to speak and his exercise of his constitutional right may not be penalized.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
* C.L.S.1961, § 335.153 (Stat.Ann.1957 Rev. § 18.1123).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Russell
...contrary to our holdings in Williams and in People v. Hicks (1970), 22 Mich.App. 446, 178 N.W.2d 193, and People v. Seales (1969), 16 Mich.App. 572, 168 N.W.2d 428. There seems to be complete agreement that evidence of or argument based on a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silen......
-
People v. Rolston
...to the same effect, 7 our Court has consistently held (People v. Hicks (1970), 22 Mich.App. 446, 178 N.W.2d 193; People v. Seales (1969), 16 Mich.App. 572, 168 N.W.2d 428; People v. Williams (1970), 26 Mich.App. 218, 230, 182 N.W.2d 347) that the rule of constitutional law which protects an......
-
People v. Williams
...was an impermissible comment on the defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent. The motion was denied. In People v. Seales (1969), 16 Mich.App. 572, 168 N.W.2d 428, we reversed the defendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial where a similar argument was made, saying that it ......
-
People v. McColor
...v. Hicks (1970), 22 Mich.App. 446, 178 N.W.2d 193 (leave granted, 384 Mich. 754, subsequently dismissed); and People v. Seales (1969), 16 Mich.App. 572, 168 N.W.2d 428, we ruled that a defendant who takes the stand may not be asked on cross-examination why he did not tell the police at the ......