People v. Strickland, Docket No. 30390
| Decision Date | 08 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 30390 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Charles STRICKLAND, Defendant-Appellant. 79 Mich.App. 454, 263 N.W.2d 11 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[79 MICHAPP 455] Bellanca & Beattie by Gasper J. Gammicchia, Harper Woods, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward R. Wilson, Appellate Chief, Craig L. John, Asst. Pros. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WALSH, P. J., and V. J. BRENNAN and BEASLEY, JJ.
In a nonjury trial in the Traffic and Ordinance Division of the Detroit Recorder's Court, defendant was convicted of failing to stop and identify himself at the scene of a personal injury automobile accident in which he was involved. 1 Defendant was sentenced to serve one year in the Detroit House of Correction. He appeals as of right.
Defendant claims the actions, comments and conduct of the trial judge, taken together as a whole, indicate bias and deprived defendant of a fair and impartial trial.
Review of the record as a whole indicates that the trial judge chose to ask questions of witnesses far more often than seemed necessary. Also, on several occasions, he accompanied his rulings with [79 MICHAPP 456] argumentative statements that invited argumentative responses by counsel. There were interruptions by the trial judge of questioning by the attorneys and of testimony of witnesses that would have been better omitted. A judge should learn to discipline the urge to inject himself into the advocates' roles and to let trials take their course; the umpire should not try to participate in the contest. However, this record does not indicate that the trial judge was biased; in fact, it is a fair conclusion that he believed he was helping both sides. The conduct of the trial judge did not deny defendant a fair trial, and did not rise to the level that would require reversal.
Furthermore, no objection was made at trial to the alleged errors now asserted. The general rule is that failure to make timely objection precludes appellate review.
Defendant also complains that the trial judge found defendant guilty of a different charge than that made by the prosecutor. Defendant says the trial judge erroneously believed intent was a necessary element of the offense. In his findings, the trial judge found defendant intentionally inflicted injury upon the complainant with his car. While intent to injure is not a necessary element of the offense charged against defendant, if the trial judge believed otherwise, the effect was to impose a greater burden of proof on the prosecution than the law required. Consequently, there was neither harm nor prejudice to defendant, even if the facts were as defendant asserts.
Defendant's final claim is that sentence should not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sonen, 17667
...in the advocates' roles? Ordinarily, the umpire is to call the balls and strikes and not play first base. See, People v. Strickland, 79 Mich.App. 454, 263 N.W.2d 11 (1978); see also, State v. Barker, 227 Neb. 842, 420 N.W.2d 695 It is axiomatic that a trial judge pierces his veil of imparti......
-
People v. Harper
...for More than one year or an offense expressly designated by law to be a felony". (Emphasis added). See People v. Strickland, 79 Mich.App. 454, 263 N.W.2d 11 (1977). Black's Law Dictionary defines "prison" as synonymous with penitentiary "to designate institutions for the imprisonment of pe......