People v. Teal, Docket No. 6018

• Decision Date: 25 November 1969
• Docket Number: Docket No. 6018,No. 1,1
• Citation: 20 Mich.App. 176,173 N.W.2d 736
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy TEAL and David Arnold, Defendants-Appellants
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 736

173 N.W.2d 736

20 Mich.App. 176

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy TEAL and David Arnold, Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 6018.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

Nov. 25, 1969.

Released for Publication Feb. 9, 1970.

Elliott S. Hall, Detroit, for defendants-appellants.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Division, Arthur N. Bishop, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before LESINSKI, C.J., and HOLBROOK and QUINN, JJ.

QUINN, Judge.

Defendants were convicted by jury verdict of breaking and entering in violation of M.C.L.A. § 750.110 (Stat.Ann.1968 Cum.Supp. § 28.305). They were sentenced and they appeal.

The controlling issue on appeal relates to a statement given to the police by defendant Arnold as a result of interrogation. Defendants characterize this statement as a confession and plaintiff refers to it as an admission. We find the distinction meaningless. Bruton v. United States (1968), 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, deals with extrajudicial statements and covers the statement here involved.

Defendants were tried together, and during trial, the contents of Arnold's statement were related to the jury by a detective. Arnold did not testify and his statement implicates defendant Teal. The trial judge instructed the jury to disregard the Arnold statement as it related to Teal.

The case at bar was tried in February 1967. Bruton, supra, was decided in May 1968 and it was made retroactive by Roberts v. Russell (1968), 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 1921, 20 L.Ed.2d 1100. The gist of Bruton is that admission in evidence in a joint trial of an extrajudicial statement by a codefendant who does not testify violates the other defendant's right of cross-examination guaranteed by the confrontation clause of the U.S.Const., Am. 6. This sixth amendment right is applicable to the states, Douglas v. Alabama (1965), 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934, and the same right is guaranteed by Const.1963, art. 1, § 20. It was error to admit the statement of Arnold.

The Arnold statement is the only evidence which places Teal at the scene of the crime. We are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneous admission of the statement did not contribute to Teal's conviction. Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705. The Teal conviction must be reversed.

We have considered Harrington v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284, and we find it inapplicable to the case before us. Harrington just decided Harrington and it is not precedential authority. Harrington specifically reaffirms Chapman, supra. In Harrington, one of three codefendant confessors testified and was cross-examined by Harrington's attorney. Several witnesses, including Harrington, placed the latter at the scene of the crime.

Defendant Arnold contends the statement was inadmissible against him because it was not shown to be voluntary. The trial judge held a separate hearing in the absence of...