People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 20 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 580,580,3 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald D. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. Cal |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Robert D. Edsall, Greenville, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Charles H. Miel, Pros. Atty., Montcalm County, Stanton, for appellee.
Before HOLBROOK, P. J., and BURNS and GILLIS, JJ.
Defendant Donald D. Williams, while serving a one year sentence imposed on a charge not related to this case, was arraigned on a warrant charging the commission of the crime of incest brought on a complaint initiated by his daughter, Donna Williams. Defendant's daughter alleged the act of incest took place on or about February 17, 1963, but she did not complain to the authorities until shortly before the defendant's arraignment on July 17, 1963, explaining the delay was caused by her fear of her father.
The defendant requested an examination, which was held in the justice court on October 4, 1963. On December 10, 1963, at 1:30 p. m., the defendant was interrogated at the office of detective Earl R. DeBoer at the Michigan state police post at Rockford. Defendant was then represented by counsel who was not present at the time of the interrogation.
On a petition of the prosecuting attorney, a nolle prosequi was entered by the court on January 20, 1964. Thereafter, on the same date, the defendant was arraigned on a new warrant charging the commission of the crime of statutory rape on complaint of his daughter Donna, a female child under the age of 16 years. The rape charge contained the same averments as to venue and date as contained in the prior warrant charging the commission of incest. After a preliminary examination the defendant was arraigned on an information and was brought to trial by jury on February 11, 1964.
At the trial detective Earl R. DeBoer testified concerning the results of the interrogation of December 10, 1963, stating that the defendant had appeared voluntarily to answer questions concerning the then pending charge. Defendant denied the charge but made a statement admitting other immoral acts involving the same complainant. The jury returned a verdict of guilty to the lesser and included offense of assault with intent to commit rape.
Defendant's counsel raises three relevant issues. Incorporated in this appeal are 19 other allegations of error set forth at the request and in the language of the defendant. An examination of this record discloses that the 19 errors proposed by the defendant are either completely refuted by the transcript or are not worthy of comment by this Court.
Counsel for the defendant contends that the court erred in allowing the detective to testify as to the defendant's admission, for the following reasons: 1, the admission related to a separate and distinct offense not covered by the then pending charge; 2, the defendant's counsel not being present, the statement was inadmissible.
It has long been the rule in Michigan that the evidence of the commission of another offense by the defendant cannot be admitted for the purpose of showing that the defendant was more likely to have committed the offense for which he is on trial, nor as corroborating the testimony relating to the commission of such principal offense. But in cases involving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lytal
...not tainting an otherwise voluntary confession. This conclusion is in accord with the law in this state. People v. Williams, 2 Mich.App. 91, 94-95, 138 N.W.2d 498 (1965), People v. Daniels, 2 Mich.App. 395, 398-399, 140 N.W.2d 541 (1966), lv. den. 378 Mich. 721 (1966), People v. Jordan, 34 ......
-
People v. Chism, Docket No. 9278
...to show 'opportunity, disposition of the parties, and intimate relations tending to break down self respect.' People v. Williams (1965), 2 Mich.App. 91, 94, 138 N.W.2d 498, 500. These exceptions are not applicable in a homicide case where the evidence of unrelated and dissimilar prior incid......
-
People v. Weston
...provide a reasoned basis for the "no prejudice/no reversible error" rule. One of the earlier cases 7 cited People v. Donald D. Williams, 2 Mich.App. 91, 138 N.W.2d 498 (1965), but Williams discussed prejudice in the context of denial of a speedy trial claim. The analysis of a speedy trial i......
-
People v. Dermartzex
...for which it may be used. For the law applicable in this matter, we turn to what was said by the Court in People v. Williams (1965), 2 Mich.App. 91, 94, 138 N.W.2d 498, 500: 'It has long been the rule in Michigan that the evidence of the commission of another offense by the defendant cannot......