People v. Smith

• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: McGREGOR
• Citation: People v. Smith, 183 N.W.2d 584, 27 Mich.App. 442 (Mich. App. 1970)
• Decision Date: 28 October 1970
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 6565,No. 1,6840,1
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald R. SMITH, James H. Pritchett and Eddie Henry Ringo, Defendants-Appellants

Page 584

183 N.W.2d 584

27 Mich.App. 442

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald R. SMITH, James H. Pritchett and Eddie Henry Ringo Defendants-Appellants.

Docket Nos. 6565, 6840.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

Oct. 28, 1970.

Released for Publication Feb. 23, 1971.

Kenneth A. Webb, Troy, for defendants-appellants.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Robert A. Reuther, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and McGREGOR and AGER, ^* JJ.

McGREGOR, Judge.

The defendants herein were tried together and found guilty of assault with intent to rob, being armed. C.L.1948, § 750.89 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.284). The defendants appeal their convictions.

Testimony established that the offense charged was committed. Defendants Pritchett and Ringo were identified as the two armed participants, while the third defendant was identified as a person who, shortly before the commission of the offense, bought a package of cigarettes and then left the store where the robbery occurred.

After defendant Smith was arrested, he made a statement to police which, after a Walker hearing, ¹ was introduced as evidence against defendant Smith.

Defendant Smith, on appeal, contends that the trial court erroneously characterized his statement to the police as an 'admission,' which gave the impression to the jury that the defendant had admitted guilt. Although the court once did refer to defendant's statement as an admission, no objection was made and this failure to object precludes raising the issue on appeal. Furthermore, a reading of the trial transcript, which shows the context in which the word admission was used, indicates that the word contained no inference that the court had concluded that the defendant admitted guilt.

Defendants Pritchett and Ringo claim they were denied their right of confrontation of the witnesses, as secured by the 6th Amendment and made applicable to the states. Pointer v. Texas (1965), 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923. During the trial, defendant Smith's statement, which defendants Pritchett and Ringo claim inculpated them, was introduced in evidence against Smith. Bruton v. United States (1968), 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, held that the admission of a nontestifying codefendant's statement implicating a defendant at a joint trial constituted a denial of the right to confrontation when there is no effective way to cross-examine the codefendant regarding the statement.

Smith's statement did not inculpate the other codefendants. The trial court properly made deletions in Smith's statement of all reference to the names of any codefendants. In fact, the statement does not show that there were any other persons involved in the commission of the crime and in no way served to implicate the other defendants. People v. Patton (1968), 15 Mich.App. 198, 201, 166 N.W.2d 284; Bailey v. United States (CA 10, 1969) 410 F.2d 1209; United States v. Gregg (CA 7, 1969), 414 F.2d 943.

At the close of the People's proofs and in the presence of the jury, the court made he following inquiry:

'All right, we will take them in the order they are sitting. Does the defendant Ringo have any defense?'

Defendant Ringo now contends that, inasmuch as he did not testify at the trial (although the other two defendants, Smith and Pritchett, took the witness stand in their own behalf), this inquiry by the court constituted an adverse coimment as to his failure to testify. Griffin v. California (1965), 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106. The People contend that the record indicates the question was asked merely to determine whether Ringo proposed to present any...