People v. Woods
| Decision Date | 02 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 10205,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 188 N.W.2d 649,32 Mich.App. 358 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnnie WOODS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
George K. Semerly, Semerly & Theophelis, Lansing, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Raymond L. Scodeller, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before R. B. BURNS, P.J., and J. H. GILLIS and T. M. BURNS, JJ.
Defendant, Johnnie Woods, was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. M.C.L.A. § 750.110 (Stat.Ann. 1970 Cum.Supp. § 28.305). He appeals as of right.
Defendant appeared in court wearing a prison uniform and a blue windbreaker jacket. Following Voir dire and impaneling of the jury, defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the ground that defendant's presumption of innocence was infringed by his appearing in that manner. The trial judge ordered a recess to allow defendant to change clothes, but denied the motion for mistrial ruling that it was not timely made and that no prejudice resulted since the combination of the windbreaker jacket and green prison trousers gave the appearance of ordinary work clothes and that no prison insignia was visible.
Defendant claims on appeal that denial of his motion for mistrial was reversible error. We disagree. In People v. Shaw (1969), 381 Mich. 467, 164 N.W.2d 7, the Supreme Court ruled that although appearance before a jury in prison clothes may constitute prejudicial error, failure to make objection until after the jury is impaneled waives the defect. Because of the trial court's finding, in the instant case, that defendant's attire resembled work clothes instead of a prison uniform and in light of defendant's failure to make timely objection, we find no error.
Defendant also argues he was denied effective assistance of counsel as an alternative to his claim of prejudice. His contention is that if his lawyer waived the claim of improper attire, then his counsel was necessarily ineffective.
Competence or effectiveness of counsel cannot be measured by the number of witnesses cross-examined and the number of objections made. People v. Lundberg (1961), 364 Mich. 596, 111 N.W.2d 809. Nevertheless, the record reveals defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined witnesses and strenuously argued his case to the jury. The trial court's ruling that defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Turner
...The court failed to make any note of the clothing defendant was wearing, thereby distinguishing Porter, supra, and People v. Woods, 32 Mich.App. 358, 188 N.W.2d 649 (1971). The record shows that defendant was in jail clothing and wore a yellow Oakland County jail band on his wrist. Absent a......
-
People v. Porter, Docket No. 54660
...to make a timely protest [117 MICHAPP 425] which waived his right to object on appeal. Id., 475, 164 N.W.2d 7. In People v. Woods, 32 Mich.App. 358, 188 N.W.2d 649 (1971), the defendant was tried in prison clothes which had the appearance of ordinary working clothes. Defendant failed to obj......
-
People v. Harris
...People v. Lee, supra (trial court believed that the defendant's clothing would be recognized as jail garb), with People v. Woods, 32 Mich.App. 358, 359, 188 N.W.2d 649 (1971) (trial court found that the defendant's attire resembled work The court found that defendant's blue pants and shirt ......
-
People v. Bigelow, Docket No. 147166.
...if it finds that the inmate's attire does “not look like prison clothing.” Id. at 152, 505 N.W.2d 889; accord People v. Woods, 32 Mich.App. 358, 359, 188 N.W.2d 649 (1971) (noting that defendant's request was untimely and that the trial court found that his prison attire resembled “work clo......