People v. Stephen, Docket No. 8957
| Decision Date | 24 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 8957,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 31 Mich.App. 604,188 N.W.2d 105 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David C. STEPHEN, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Sol Plafkin, & Lawrence R. Greene, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Angelo A. Pentolino, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and QUINN and O'HARA *, JJ.
December 18, 1969, a jury found defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, M.C.L.A. § 750.316 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.548). The victim was killed during an armed robbery. Defendant was sentenced; he did not move for new trial, and he appeals.
Defendant raises 14 issues on appeal. We note these issues and dispose of them as follows:
1. Defendant's claim that he was denied a fair trial because of alleged systematic exclusion of blacks and others from jury service is in effect a challenge to the array. It is raised for the first time on appeal. This is too late, People v. McCrea (1942), 303 Mich. 213, 278, 6 N.W.2d 489.
2. The record does not support a finding that defendant's trial counsel was ineffective to the extent that defendant was denied a fair trial or was denied his constitutional right to counsel. See People v. DeGraffenreid (1969), 19 Mich.App. 702, 173 N.W.2d 317.
3. Defendant made five objections during the prosecuting attorney's closing argument all of which were sustained by the trial court. If further error occurred during that argument, it was not saved for review because of lack of objection. People v. Panknin (1966), 4 Mich.App. 19, 143 N.W.2d 806.
4. It was not error for the trial judge not to instruct on lesser included offenses absent request therefor. People v. Clouse (1969), 18 Mich.App. 582, 171 N.W.2d 554. There was no evidence to support a lesser included offense. People v. Sweet (1970), 25 Mich.App. 95, 181 N.W.2d 7. Additionally, the defense was alibi. See People v. Camak (1967), 5 Mich.App. 655, 663, 147 N.W.2d 746.
5. It was not error to deny defendant's post conviction motion for psychiatric examination. People v. Herald LeGrand Russell, Jr. (1970), 27 Mich.App. 654, 183 N.W.2d 845.
6. The record supports the finding of the trial court that the people exercised due diligence in their attempt to locate an indorsed Res gestae witness and the nonproduction of this witness was not error.
7. This due diligence need not be submitted to the jury. People v. Kern (1967), 6 Mich.App. 406, 149 N.W.2d 216.
8. Witnesses Barbara Beck and Albert White were not Res gestae witnesses and there was no error in failing to require their indorsement as such; nor was it error for the prosecuting attorney not to call them as witnesses.
9. The instruction relative to witness Beck was necessary because of defendant's reference to her in closing argument.
10. At trial, defendant made no claim of unfair lineup procedure. The issue of the people's failure to produce as a witness defendant's lineup counsel is not before us. People v. Rowls, Dowell, Marshall (1970), 28 Mich.App. 190, 184 N.W.2d 332.
11. It was not error to preclude a defense witness, not indorsed on the notice of alibi, from testifying. M.C.L.A. § 768.20 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.1043); People v. George Johnson (1966), 5 Mich.App. 257, 146 N.W.2d 107.
12. The instruction on alibi, read in its entirety, was correct and it was not objected to at trial. No error is presented. GCR 1963, 516.2.
13. There is ample evidence in the record, if believed by the jury, to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
14. Finally, defendant asks, 'Does the failure of trial counsel to object to the violation of basic constitutional guarantees preclude the defendant from raising those issues on appeal where the denial would lead to a 'miscarriage of justice'?'
Defendant's negative answer to this question is based on two false premises....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Harrison
...v. Zabijak, 285 Mich. 164, 171--173, 280 N.W. 149 (1938); People v. King, 32 Mich.App. 167, 188 N.W.2d 169 (1971); People v. Stephen, 31 Mich.App. 604, 188 N.W.2d 105 (1971); People v. Haywood, 28 Mich.App. 459, 184 N.W.2d 537 (1970); People v. Pruitt, 28 Mich.App. 270, 184 N.W.2d 292 (1970......
-
People v. Hubbard
...a challenge to an array had to be made in writing. See People v. McCrea, 303 Mich. 213, 6 N.W.2d 489 (1942); People v. Stephen, 31 Mich.App. 604, 188 N.W.2d 105 (1971). Without the assistance of citation to meaningful authority, we decline to adopt a rule that Sixth Amendment fair-cross-sec......
-
People v. Harris
...questions are generally decided by the trial judge, such disposition by the jury is a proper alternative method. People v. Stephen, 31 Mich.App. 604, 188 N.W.2d 105 (1971); People v. Howard, 24 Mich.App. 328, 180 N.W.2d 203 (1970); People v. Kern, 6 Mich.App. 406, 149 N.W.2d 216 (1967). 3 B......
-
Wellborn v. Berghuis
...examination waives a party's ability to challenge the composition of the jury thereafter empaneled and sworn."); People v. Stephen, 188 N.W.2d 105, 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).* * *. . . Petitioner's failure to comply with the state's independent and adequate state procedural rule, i.e., maki......