People v. Szeles, Docket No. 1916
| Decision Date | 25 August 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 1916,1 |
| Citation | 18 Mich.App. 575,171 N.W.2d 550 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward SZELES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Seymour F. Posner, Detroit, Ruth Ritter, Detroit, of counsel, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Thomas P. Smith, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and GILLIS and BEER, * JJ.
Defendant asserts he was deprived of a fair trial because the trial judge refused to permit a certain witness to be called in his behalf. Both prosecution and defense asked the trial court to exclude all witnesses before the taking of any testimony. The judge granted their mutual request. The witness in question was an unindorsed witness who admitted hearing the command of the court excluding witnesses. It appears that she stayed in the courtroom and heard much of the testimony before defendant attempted to have her called in defense. We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusing to permit the witness to take the stand.
Defendant also contends that certain guns were improperly admitted as evidence. A landlady testified there were no guns on her premises before defendant became a roomer. However, after his arrival she found the guns and informed the police. The guns were admitted as evidence by the court. We find no error here since the guns were introduced to show that they were, or could be inferred to be, in the possession of the defendant and were not essential to the establishment of a conspiracy.
Deprivation of a constitutional right is asserted by defendant because a witness, who had testified at the preliminary examination, refused to testify at the trial. The testimony of that witness at the preliminary examination was then read to the jury. The record discloses that defendant was represented by counsel at the preliminary examination and entered into extensive cross-examination of the witness at that time. The trial judge properly permitted the reading of the testimony on the preliminary examination given by this recalcitrant witness. C.L.1948, § 768.26 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.1049); People v. Pickett (1954), 339 Mich. 294, 63 N.W.2d 681, 45 A.L.R.2d 1341.
Conviction affirmed.
* WILLIAM J. BEER,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dortch
...640 (1977) ("recalcitrant" witness), People v. Thomas, 61 Mich.App. 717, 233 N.W.2d 158 (1975) (lack of memory), People v. Szeles, 18 Mich.App. 575, 171 N.W.2d 550 (1969) (refusal to However, People v. White, 401 Mich. 482, 257 N.W.2d 912 (1977), decided after trial in the case at bar, alte......
-
People v. Moore, Docket No. 27272
...v. Pickett, 339 Mich. 294, 63 N.W.2d 681 (1954), cert. den., 349 U.S. 937, 75 S.Ct. 781, 99 L.Ed. 1266 (1955); People v. Szeles, 18 Mich.App. 575, 171 N.W.2d 550 (1969); People v. Goldman, 349 Mich. 77, 84 N.W.2d 241 (1957). Defendant's attempt to distinguish the above cases by saying that ......
-
People v. Castaneda
...294, 306, 63 N.W.2d 681 (1954), and also that of a witness who merely refuses to testify. People v. Szeles, 18 Mich.App . 575, 577, 171 N.W.2d 550 (1969). A witness's physical unavailability is not required. Nor was it required that the prosecutor grant Velasquez immunity under M.C.L.A. § 7......
-
People v. Walton, Docket Nos. 27888
...§ 768.26; M.S.A. § 28.1049, as elaborated upon by People v. Thomas, 61 Mich.App. 717, 233 N.W.2d 158 (1975), People v. Szeles, 18 Mich.App. 575, 171 N.W.2d 550 (1969), and People v. Pickett, 339 Mich. 294, 63 N.W.2d 681 The other such episode involved the testimony of [76 MICHAPP 6] Zachary......