People v. Talaga, Docket No. 10448

Decision Date23 November 1971
Docket NumberNo. 3,Docket No. 10448,3
Citation37 Mich.App. 100,194 N.W.2d 462
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert James TALAGA, Defendant-Appellant
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

James G. Orford, Bay City, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Eugene C. Penzien, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before McGREGOR, P.J., and FITZGERALD and QUINN, JJ.

QUINN, Judge.

Defendant was charged with and convicted by jury verdict of armed robbery, M.C.L.A. § 750.529 (Stat.Ann.1971 Cum.Supp. § 28.797). He was sentenced and he appeals.

Defendant states the first issue raised on appeal as, 'Did the court commit error when it failed to grant the defendant's motion for a mistrial at the time the prosecutor asked the defendant under oath whether or not he was a heroin addict, and was the question and the testimony elicited thereby prejudicial to the rights of the defendant?' We view this issue in context with the facts developed at trial.

When the prosecution rested, it had established a prima facie case. Defendant waived an opening statement and took the witness stand. His direct testimony established that he was a married man with children, that his wife was in the courtroom and that he (defendant) knew absolutely nothing about the case.

Cross-examination developed that defendant was at home at the time of the alleged offense. That during the day of the alleged offense, he was seeking employment of any kind but he was unable to specify any person he saw or place he went concerning employment. After some testimony that is immaterial to the issue before us, defendant was asked, 'Mr. Talaga, it is true you are a heroin addict?'

Defense counsel's objection was sustained, but the trial judge and counsel then held a conference in chambers at which defense counsel asked for a mistrial. The trial judge denied the mistrial and indicated he would allow the proof in. Again before the jury, the following occurred:

'Q. Mr. Talaga, I will re-state my question, is it not true that during the period on or about December 4, 1969 that you were a heroin addict?

A. No, sir.

MR. MILLER: I can't hear the question.

A. No, sir, not the period of time of December 4th, no sir.

Q. You were not?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ask for treatment? Is that when you were arrested?

A. Mr. Penzien I would like to clarify the fact that I was arrested December 17th or 18th, subsequent to December 4th, I was not using it. The middle of November I admitted myself into Lexington to take treatments. That is why. I still stayed clean the latter part of November of Thanksgiving and through the first part of December. You have asked me to admit to drug addiction--I am admitting drug addiction.

Q. As I understand, you were addicted in November and were addicted at the time of arrest but weren't addicted at the time of the offense?

MR. MILLER: Objection. I believe the defendant has answered the question in regard to drug addiction. I don't believe the matter should be pursued any further.

MR. PENZIEN: I am trying to make sure that I understand his testimony.

THE COURT: I would be inclined at this point Mr. Penzien, I think it is clear on the record and sustain the objection at this time. I will also sustain it and ask that you not pursue the matter any further.'

There was no further testimony on this topic, and there was no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Wilson v. Mintzes
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • June 17, 1985
    ...hearing on the competency issue. The granting of a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court, People v. Talaga, 37 Mich.App. 100, 102, 194 N.W.2d 462 (1971), and the court's discretionary decision will not be set aside unless resulting prejudice to the defendant is demonstr......
  • State v. Costello
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • July 23, 2009
    ...used to prove identity, and evidence of prior bad acts is one way to prove motive. See id. at 440, 463.In People v. Talaga, 37 Mich.App. 100, 194 N.W.2d 462, 463 (1971), for instance, to prove that the defendant participated in the armed robbery, the prosecution sought to admit evidence tha......
  • People v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • May 27, 1975
    ...In two cases decided in 1971, this Court reached opposite results with respect to this issue. The people cite People v. Talaga, 37 Mich.App. 100, 194 N.W.2d 462 (1971), where defendant was charged with and convicted by jury verdict of armed robbery. During cross-examination, defendant was a......
  • State v. Moss
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 31, 1985
    ..."represented a proper attempt to attack his credibility which was crucial to the state's case." In People v. Talaga, 37 Mich.App. 100, 194 N.W.2d 462 (1971), the court held that it was proper for the prosecutor to cross-examine a defendant, charged with armed robbery, on whether he was a he......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT