People v. Williams, Docket No. 12398
| Decision Date | 31 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 12398,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 201 N.W.2d 286,42 Mich.App. 278 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Michael S. Friedman, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., John L. Thompson, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LEVIN, P.J., and V. J. BRENNAN and VanVALKENBURG, * JJ.
The defendant, Arthur Williams, Jr., appeals his conviction by a jury of the offense of armed robbery. M.C.L.A. § 750.529; M.S.A. § 28.797.
The victim of the robbery testified at the trial that the robber had bad front teeth--they were described as 'rotten teeth.'
The defendant did not take the stand.
The prosecutor was permitted to argue, over the objection of the defendant's lawyer, that the defendant did not show that he did not have bad front teeth: 'have you noticed Ladies and Gentlemen at any time whether or not Mr. Williams has shown to you his front teeth?'; 'Throughout this trial, have any of you seen him smile, have you seen him grin, have you in fact seen him open his mouth?'
The trial judge denied the defendant a mistrial. We agree with his ruling.
We do not read the prosecutor's argument as a thinly-veiled comment on the defendant's failure to testify. We take it at face value, as a comment on the defendant's failure to show--by exhibiting his front teeth--that he could not have been the man described by the witness as the man who perpetrated the robbery.
The inference that the prosecutor asked the jurors to draw was a reasonable one. Many reasonable men would conclude that if the defendant's front teeth were not bad, he would have displayed them; since he did not display them, his teeth were probably bad.
Just as the Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against oneself does not protect an accused person from being compelled to exhibit his countenance 1 or to provide exemplars of his fingerprints, 2 voice 3 or handwriting, 4 so, too, the Fifth Amendment does not shield from compulsory disclosure the state of his teeth. 5
The general rule that the trier of fact may infer from the failure of a litigant to produce non-privileged evidence under his control that the evidence, if produced, would be unfavorable applies to the defendant in a criminal case, as well as to other litigants, once the people present sufficient evidence to support a conviction. 6
Asking the trier of fact to draw a reasonable inference from the evidence-- including, as in this case, the lack of rebutting evidence--does not violate the rule which prohibits a lawyer from assuming in argument a fact not in evidence. 7
Nor do we find merit in the defendant's other contentions.
The identity of the witnesses who were not produced by the people at the trial was made known to the defendant during or before the trial. The failure of the defendant's trial lawyer to move for their indorsement and production precludes an assignment of error on that account. 8
In this connection, the judge--and this is also apropos of the first issue--instructed the jurors that, if they found that the missing witnesses were Res gestae or eyewitnesses and that the prosecutor did not satisfactorily explain their nonproduction, they, the jurors, might consider that the missing witnesses might have testified favorably to the defendant had they been produced by the prosecutor. After the judge concluded his instructions he asked the lawyers if they had any objection. The defendant's lawyer responded, 'I think you covered it nicely.' There was no error.
The defendant's lawyer did not clearly request an instruction on lesser included offenses--specific lesser offenses were not named by the lawyer. Moreover, it is doubtful whether, on the record presented, the defendant was entitled to an instruction on lesser offenses. The judge indicated that he was of the opinion that the defendant was not entitled to such an instruction. The matter was resolved when the defendant's lawyer said, 'I will leave it to the discretion of the court.' The judge then announced, wothout objection from the defendant's lawyer, that in view of the nature of the defense--alibi--he would instruct the jury only on the charged offense of armed robbery. This aspect of the case is controlled by the Michigan Supreme Court's recent decision in People v. Wynn, 386 Mich. 627, 194 N.W.2d 354 (1972).
Affirmed.
* WADE VanVALKENBURG, former Circuit Court Judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const.1963, art. 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.
1 See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 221, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); People v. Schrader, 10 Mich.App. 211, 214, 159 N.W.2d 147 (1968).
2 See Pearson v. United States, 389 F.2d 684 (CA 5, 1968); United States v. De Palma, 414 F.2d 394 (CA 9, 1969); People v. Davis, 17 Mich.App. 615, 170 N.W.2d 274 (1969).
4 See People v. Jamerson, 14 Mich.App. 253, 165 N.W.2d 480 (1968). See, generally, Annos, Physical Examination or Exhibition of, or Tests Upon, Suspect or Accused, as Violating Rights Guaranteed by Federal Constitution--Federal Cases, 16 L.Ed.2d 1332; 22 L.Ed.2d 909.
5 There is no need the record in this case to consider the possible Fourth Amendment search and seizure limitations on such compulsory disclosures. Cf. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); United States v. Harris, 453 F.2d 1317 (CA 8, 1972); Mara v. United States, 454 F.2d 580 (CA 7, 1971).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Harding
...then he should also be able to, in effect, offer the same thing without waiving his Fifth Amendment right. See People v. Williams, 42 Mich.App. 278, 280-281, 201 N.W.2d 286 (1972), lv. den. 389 Mich. 779 (1973). It should be noted that the lower court based its ruling on the lack of reliabi......
-
People v. Bennett
...People v. May, 34 Mich.App. 130, 190 N.W.2d 739 (1971); People v. Thomas, 36 Mich.App. 23, 193 N.W.2d 189 (1971); People v. Williams, 42 Mich.App. 278, 201 N.W.2d 286 (1972). The defendant was apprised during trial or before trial of the fact that Ann Shannon was a possible witness, and was......
-
People v. Koehler
...People v. May, 34 Mich.App. 130, 190 N.W.2d 739 (1971); People v. Thomas, 36 Mich.App. 23, 193 N.W.2d 189 (1971); People v. Williams, 42 Mich.App. 278, 201 N.W.2d 286 (1972).' People v. Bennett, 46 Mich.App. 598, 619--620, 208 N.W.2d 624, 636 (1973). In the present case, defense counsel fai......
-
People v. Erb, Docket No. 15885
... ... Two of the witnesses testified substantially the same at preliminary examination as they did at trial. People v. Williams (6 Mich.App. 412, 149 N.W.2d 245 (1967)). More importantly, there was no major dispute among the prosecution's witnesses concerning the alleged ... ...