People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 31 January 1969
• Docket Number: No. 1,Docket No. 4651,1
• Citation: 167 N.W.2d 358,15 Mich.App. 683
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 358

167 N.W.2d 358

15 Mich.App. 683

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 4651.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

Jan. 31, 1969.

Released for Publication May 7, 1969.

Norman L. Lippitt and Robert J. Sandler, of Boesky & Lippitt, Detroit, for appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Arthur N. Bishop, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.

Before McGREGOR, P.J., and FITZGERALD and CYNAR, ^* JJ.

McGREGOR, Presiding Judge.

A jury found defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, C.L.1948, § 750.316 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.548). The victim was killed during a robbery of her party store. The evidence submitted to prove the murder included a .25-caliber shell casing found in the store, the fatal bullet taken from the body of the decedent, and testimony that defendant was seen running from the murder scene. The court also admitted evidence of a later crime, a robbery of a party store in the same neighborhood occurring approximately three weeks after the murder. Proof of the subsequent offense included three .25-caliber shell casings and the identification of the defendant by the robbery victim. Although the defendant objected to the admission of all proof of the later crime, on the grounds that it only tended to prove a subsequent crime for which defendant was not on trial, the court allowed the evidence, subject to its being 'tied in' with evidence of the murder. A ballistics expert testified that the three shell casings found at the scene of the second robbery were fired by the same gun which fired the shell casing found at the murder scene. There was no testimony that the bullet taken from the decedent's body matched the shell casing taken from the murder scene, and neither the bullets which wounded the subsequent robbery victim nor the murder weapon were introduced in evidence. Defendant denied the murder and offered four witnesses who testified that he was home at the time of the homicide. However, the jury rejected the alibi testimony and adjudged defendant guilty.

The issue presented is whether the admission of evidence of the subsequent crime constituted reversible error.

Defendant contends that the admission of the shell casings, the ballistics testimony, and the subsequent robbery victim's testimony was erroneous. Defendant acknowledges the principle that evidence of other crimes is admissible to determine intent, motive, and identity of defendnat, C.L.1948, § 768.27 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.1050) and he does not object to the evidence admitted to show motive and intent. However, defendant argues that identity is the crucial issue in this case and that the evidence allowed was not material and relevant to connect defendant with the murder. The record indicates that the bullet which killed decedent was not connected with the casing by ballistics testimony, and defendant argues that he was never connected with the murder weapon and the prosecution did not submit the slugs which wounded the second robbery victim. The defendant contends that, since there was no direct evidence that he committed the homicide, there must be a high degree of similarity between the facts and evidence of the two crimes, more than the negation of an innocent intent by evidence of similar acts. Defendant concludes that the absence of a connecting link between the murder and the second crime causes evidence of the absequent robbery to be immaterial and irrelevant as proof of the murder, as the evidence tended to prove only a second crime for which defendant was not on trial. Thus, the admission of the evidence was reversible error, requiring a new trial. As authority for his contentions, defendant cites the following cases: People v. Padgett (1943), 306 Mich. 545, 11 N.W.2d 235; People v. Rose (1934), 268 Mich. 529, 256 N.W. 536; People v. Dean (1931) 253 Mich. 434, 235 N.W. 211; People v. Fleming (1923), 224 Mich. 199, 194 N.W. 714; People v. Collins (1906), 144 Mich. 121, 107 N.W. 1114; and Lightfoot v. People (1868), 16 Mich. 507.

The prosecution responds by first stating that ballistics tests performed by a properly qualified expert are admissible in evidence. They contend that the shell casings are as unique as bullets in their markings and are as accurate as fingerprints in identification. Richardson, Modern Scientific Evidence, § 17.10, p. 438; 26 A.L.R.2d 898; Paulson, 'Admissibility of Ballistics Evidence', 21 Notre Dame Law, 354 (1946).

The prosecution states that evidence of a subsequent, similar crime for which the defendant is not in trial is admissible to prove motive, intent, or identity. C.L.1948, § 768.27 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.1050). Twenty-three Michigan decisions are cited to support the principle that evidence of other crimes is admissible to prove intent or a plan, scheme, or system. They contend that the evidence was admissible to show defendant's Modus operandi, an integral part of his identity and plan. The...