People v. Villarreal
| Citation | 298 N.W.2d 738,100 Mich.App. 379 |
| Decision Date | 06 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 78-1517,78-1521 and 78-1855 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward VILLARREAL, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo VILLARREAL, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael FUSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
Ronald A. Molter, Detroit, for defendant-appellant in case nos. 78-1517, 78-1521.
Theodore B. Sallen, Southfield, for defendant-appellant in case no. 78-1855.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., E. Reilly Wilson, III, App. Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., Robert J. Sheiko, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MAHER, P. J., and CAVANAGH and CYNAR, JJ.
Defendants Alfredo Villarreal and Edward Villarreal were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to deliver heroin, M.C.L. § 750.157a; M.S.A. § 28.354(1), and M.C.L. § 335.341(1)(a); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(a). Defendant Alfredo Villarreal was also convicted of one count of delivery of heroin, M.C.L. § 335.341(1)(a); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(a).
Trial was held in Detroit Recorder's Court, commencing February 6, 1978. On March 2, 1978, defendant Alfredo Villarreal was sentenced to two terms of from 8 to 20 years imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently. On the same date the trial judge sentenced defendant Edward Villarreal to 8 to 20 years imprisonment. Both defendants appeal as of right.
Defendant Michael Fuson was convicted by the same jury of one count of conspiracy to deliver heroin, M.C.L. § 750.157a; M.S.A. § 28.354(1), and M.C.L. § 335.341(1)(a); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(a), and two counts of delivery of heroin, M.C.L. § 335.341(1)(a); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(a). On March 2, 1978, defendant was sentenced to three terms of from 3 to 20 years imprisonment, said sentences to run concurrently. He appeals as of right.
Defendants were tried along with Samuel Mendez, Arthur Sosa, Edmundo Rodriquez, Jack Sirhan, and Phillip Hayes; all of the defendants were charged with conspiracy and all defendants were represented by attorney John D. O'Connell.
At the preliminary examination, as well as during trial, the prosecutor raised the problem of a conflict of interest since attorney John D. O'Connell was representing multiple defendants.
During the preliminary examination, following cross-examination by attorney John D. O'Connell, the prosecutor suggested that the court should inquire of the defendants individually whether they understood that there definitely could be a conflict of interest and whether they were waiving any claim of conflict of interest because of multiple representation of defendants by attorney O'Connell. Attorney O'Connell, who was a veteran of the trial court arena, indicated several times a lack of knowledge as to what problems could arise in multiple representation. After further expression of concern by the court and the prosecutor, each defendant answered the inquiry of the court by stating he was satisfied with John D. O'Connell as his lawyer.
At trial, after the opening statement of defense counsel, which immediately followed the people's opening statement, the prosecuting attorney again raised the problem of possible conflicts of interest by asking the court to make further inquiry of defendants. The court indicated that, while at that stage of the proceeding it was not aware of a conflict of interest, such a conflict could arise later in the trial. Notwithstanding any conflict of interest that might arise during the course of the trial, all defendants indicated they wanted Mr. O'Connell as their attorney.
Numerous witnesses testified at trial. The prosecutor's theory was that the alleged conspiracy was run by defendant Mendez out of the Golf King Recreation Center in Detroit.
Kay Lahman, a Detroit police officer, testified that on October 28, 1976, she went to the Golf King Recreation Center in Detroit where she met Gary Stewart and saw defendants Mendez and Sosa. She purchased a package of what she believed to be heroin from Gary Stewart. She had seen defendant Sosa give the package to Stewart. Defendant Mendez walked a few feet away just prior to the transaction. On November 10, 1976, Officer Lahman purchased narcotics from defendants Fuson and Alfredo Villarreal at the recreation center. When she inquired about a larger purchase Fuson told her that he would take her to "Sammy" the next time she came by. Fuson referred to Villarreal as his partner. Officer Lahman testified that on November 23, 1976, she went to the Golf King Recreation Center and met defendant Fuson, from whom she bought narcotics after they left the center and went to 2060 Clarkdale. She testified that on December 1, 1976, she purchased narcotics from Edmundo Rodriquez (not present at trial) at the Golf King Recreation Center. Officer Lahman testified that on December 8, 1976, she met Edmundo Rodriquez at Golf King and subsequently purchased narcotics from him in front of 2129 Vinewood.
Dennis Paul Barton, a Detroit police officer, accompanied Officer Lahman during most of the transactions reviewed above and corroborated her testimony.
Police Officer Richard Graves testified that on February 21, 1977, he went to the Golf King Recreation Center with informant James Popalia, where they met defendant Ramiro Pena. Defendant Pena and Popalia walked into the men's room together and then Popalia came out alone, handing Officer Graves two packs of suspected heroin. Graves gave him $100 in police funds with which he returned to the men's room. Popalia and defendant Pena then exited from the men's room at the same time. Graves testified that on March 1, 1977, he went to the Golf King Center where he met with defendant Pena and arranged a subsequent heroin purchase from defendant Sirhan, which purchase took place in front of 2103 Clarkdale.
Informant James Popalia testified that on February 21, 1977, he went with Officer Richard Graves to the Golf King Recreation Center where he purchased heroin from defendant Pena. On March 1, 1977, Popalia and Officer Graves went to the recreation center where they met Jack Sirhan and subsequently purchased suspected narcotics from him at the corner of Clarkdale and Toledo. Popalia testified that between October, 1976, and November, 1977, he went with Jack Sirhan, Ramiro Pena, and others to Kopernic Street for the purpose of picking up narcotics that were to be distributed at the Golf King Recreation Center.
Gary Stewart testified that his brother owned the Golf King Recreation Center and that he worked there on a part-time basis. Stewart testified that he contacted the police regarding a drug trafficking organization at that location which to his knowledge was run by Samuel Mendez. Stewart testified that on October 25, 1976, he went to Golf King with Officer Kay Lahman to purchase narcotics. He talked with defendant Samuel Mendez at that time who agreed to sell to him. In the presence of Officer Lahman he paid defendant Samuel Mendez and obtained the suspected narcotics from defendant Art Sosa. In December, 1976, Stewart began working for Samuel Mendez in the drug organization. His duties were to keep an eye on things when Mendez was not there, to collect money from the individuals selling drugs in and around the pool room, and to turn the money over to Mendez when he came in. Stewart testified that other persons working for Mendez at the time were defendant Jack Sirhan, defendant Phillip Hayes, defendant Freddy Villarreal, defendant Ramiro Pena, defendant Michael Fuson, defendant Art Sosa, and defendant Eddie Villarreal. Stewart then outlined the various duties and operations within the organization, as well as specific incidents of narcotics transactions that he had witnessed. He testified that defendant Alfredo Villarreal sold drugs for the organization and that defendant Edward Villarreal ran the cutting and distribution house.
Police Officers Michael Zamieski, Arthur Carrier, Stephen Ramsey, Steven Gyure, and William Stander testified regarding their handling of the narcotics evidence in this case. Police chemists Joseph Peindl, Richard Kasprzyk, and Raymond Feul testified concerning the chemical analysis of the narcotics evidence. Police Inspector Francis Allen and police accountant Gerald Honsberger testified regarding the destruction of certain narcotics evidence.
At that point the prosecution rested.
Defense witness Gilbert Hinojosa testified regarding the use and sales of narcotics by witness Gary Stewart.
Defense witness Juanita Carrizalez testified that she obtained narcotics at the Golf King Recreation Center from defendant Michael Fuson by paying witness Gary Stewart.
Lori Villanueva testified that she had purchased narcotics at the recreation center from Gary Stewart and had witnessed other people come to see him regarding narcotics purchases. On cross-examination, witness Villanueva testified that she had also seen defendant Mike Fuson, defendant Jack Sirhan, and Ramiro Pena sell narcotics at Golf King.
Defendant Phillip Hayes testified that he had never sold or delivered narcotics, that he never had any dealings in narcotics with Gary Stewart, and that he had never known Sam Mendez to have anything to do with narcotics.
Defendant Jack Sirhan testified that he had sold narcotics which he received from Gary Stewart. He testified that he had never known Sam Mendez to have anything to do with narcotics and that witness Stewart had instructed him to say that it was "Sammy's stuff" if he ever got caught with the narcotics.
Defendant Samuel Mendez testified that he used to play pool at the Golf King Recreation Center. He testified that he had had arguments with witness Gary Stewart concerning pool games. He testified that he has never used or sold narcotics.
In his closing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Peery
...duty" is very similar to the arguments used in People v. Hall, 396 Mich. 650, 242 N.W.2d 377 (1976); and People v. Edward Villarreal, 100 Mich.App. 379, 298 N.W.2d 738 (1980). They are dispositive of defendant's claims of error as to the alleged "civic duty" arguments made by the prosecutor......
-
People v. Leverette
...in part argued from a hypothetical case putting the jurors in the position of the victim. 3 Compare, People v. Edward Villarreal, 100 Mich.App. 379, 392-393, 298 N.W.2d 738 (1980). The harmless error standard applicable to this type of problem requires us to reverse if the error was so offe......
-
Kost v. State
...might frustrate the fairness of the proceedings." State v. Anderson, 207 Neb. 51, 296 N.W.2d 440, 452 (1980); see People v. Villarreal, 100 Mich.App. 379, 298 N.W.2d 738 (1980); May v. State, 97 Wis.2d 175, 293 N.W.2d 478 (1980). Kost's absence from these discussions was not error because h......
-
People v. Lasenby
...Detroit from financial ruin was prejudicial and not relevant to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. See People v. Edward Villarreal, 100 Mich.App. 379, 298 N.W.2d 738 (1980). Additionally, it has been held that the prosecutor may not change subtly a presumption of innocence to a presum......