People v. Tinskey, Docket No. 11582

Decision Date24 June 1974
Docket NumberNo. 3,Docket No. 11582,3
Citation53 Mich.App. 667,220 N.W.2d 53
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald W. TINSKEY and John W. Williams, Defendants-Appellants
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Nicholas Smith, Smith, Bokos, Jones & Plakas, Detroit, Richard G. Leonard, Grand Rapids, Philip A. Gillis, Detroit, for defendants-appellants.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., James K. Miller, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Johnston, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before DANHOF, P.J., and McGREGOR and MILES,* JJ.

ON REMAND

DANHOF, Presiding Judge.

This cause was remanded to our Court by order of the Supreme Court dated April 18, 1974, for reconsideration in light of People v. Turner, 390 Mich. 7, 210 N.W.2d 336 (1973). The first decision by this Court is reported at 49 Mich.App. 497, 212 N.W.2d 263 (1973).

In Turner, our Supreme Court rejected the subjective test for entrapment and accepted Justice Stewart's dissenting opinion in United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S.Ct. 1637; 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973).

This Court upon remand has reconsidered this cause in light of Turner and does hereby reaffirm its original opinion affirming defendants' convictions of conspiracy to commit abortion in violation of M.C.L.A. § 750.14; M.S.A. § 28.204 and M.C.L.A. § 750.157a; M.S.A. § 28.354(1). Defendants were convicted by a jury of this offense on February 10, 1971. The Turner case was decided in September of 1973, approximately 2 1/2 years later. In People v. Gaines, 53 Mich.App. 443, 220 N.W.2d 76 (1974) a panel of this Court held that Turner was to be applied prospectively:

'We hold that until the Supreme Court clearly mandates that Turner is to be applied retroactively, we must approach this on the basis of the standards which were applicable prior to Turner. To do otherwise would have a highly detrimental effect on the administration of justice. This seriously disruptive effect predisposes a prospective application, in a fashion not dissimilar to the United States Supreme Court's refusal to apply Miranda and Escobedo retroactively.'

In this cause, under the standards applicable prior to Turner, we cannot say as a matter of law that defendants were entrapped.

Affirmed.

MILES, J., not participating.

* WENDELL A. MILES, Circuit Judge for the 20th judicial circuit, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const.1963, art. 6, §...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Soper
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • January 27, 1975
    ...the effect of the decision in Turner is prospective only. People v. Gaines, 53 Mich.App. 443, 220 N.W.2d 76 (1974), People v. Tinskey, 53 Mich.App. 667, 220 N.W.2d 53 (1974), People v. Koehler, 54 Mich.App. 624, 221 N.W.2d 398 (1974). Therefore, the entrapment standard as it stood prior to ......
  • People v. Jones
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • October 13, 1975
    ...has consistently held Turner not to be retroactive, People v. Koehler, 54 Mich.App. 624, 221 N.W.2d 398 (1974), People v. Tinskey, 53 Mich.App. 667, 220 N.W.2d 53 (1974), People v. Gaines, 53 Mich.App. 443, 220 N.W.2d 76 (1974), and our Supreme Court has recently reached the same decision i......

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