People v. Wray, Docket No. 15239
| Decision Date | 30 August 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 15239,2 |
| Citation | 212 N.W.2d 78,49 Mich.App. 344 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry WRAY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Jonathan E. Maire, Lansing, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Raymond L. Scodeller, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before T. M. BURNS, P.J., and McGREGOR and VanVALKENBURG,* JJ.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of carrying a concealed weapon in a motor vehicle contrary to M.C.L.A. § 750.227; M.S.A. § 28.424. He was sentenced to 5 years probation of which the first 6 months were to be spent in the county jail.
Although defendant raises 4 allegations of error on appeal, we find 1 to be decisional and to mandate a reversal, namely: whether after a timely request by defense counsel, the trial court reversibly erred by refusing to specifically inquire into the possible existence of racial prejudice during the voir dire examination of prospective jurors.
A review of the record discloses that the defendant is a black man. All of the jurors called and impanelled and all of the witnesses for the prosecution were white.
Prior to the voir dire examination, defense counsel formally requested the trial court to ask the prospective jurors a series of written questions which included the following:
The trial court declined to ask the foregoing questions. However the court did make general inquiries into the jurors' possible bias or prejudice. Defense counsel did not object to the trial court's refusal to ask the questions concerning the possible racial bias of the jurors.
The outcome of the instant appeal is squarely controlled by a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court. In Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 93 S.Ct. 848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46 (1973), the defendant, a black man, requested the trial court to ask the jury on the voir dire examination 2 specific questions dealing with racial prejudice. The trial court refused to do so and, as in the case at bar, asked general questions relating to bias or prejudice. So far as the record shows, no objection was made to the failure to ask the requested questions. See State v. Ham, 256 S.C. 1, 180 S.E.2d 628 (1971). Relying on Aldridge v. United States, 283 U.S. 308, 51 S.Ct. 470, 75 L.Ed. 1054 (1931), in reversing the defendant's conviction the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment 1 imposed a duty upon the trial court to question jurors on the subject of racial prejudice. Even though the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. Ristaino, 74-1222
...200 S.E.2d 454 (1973) (error not to allow black woman charged with theft to have questions concerning racial bias); People v. Wray, 49 Mich.App. 344, 212 N.W.2d 78 (1973) (black defendant charged with carrying concealed weapon in motor vehicle entitled to question all-white jury on racial b......
-
State v. Long
...Ga.App. 657, 200 S.E.2d 454 (App.Ct.1973); People v. Williams, 41 A.D.2d 611, 340 N.Y.S.2d 504 (App.Div.1973); People v. Wray, 49 Mich.App. 344, 212 N.W.2d 78 (App.Ct.1973). The jurisdictions represented by the foregoing cases have indulged in a broad interpretation of Ham as setting down a......
-
People v. Flansburgh
...curtailment of voir dire was reversible error. People v. Milkovich, 31 Mich.App. 582, 585, 188 N.W.2d 124 (1971). Cf. People v. Wray, 49 Mich.App. 344, 212 N.W.2d 78 (1973). Defense counsel's mid-trial spurning of the court's proffered mistrial does not constitute a waiver of the error caus......
-
Carter v. Braunstein, 77-4559
...trial than were the special factors involved in Ham " where racial issues "were inextricably bound up with the conduct of the trial". In People v. Wray, 6 the trial court [89 MICHAPP 122] "Even though the Court noted that there was no requirement for the trial court to ask the defendant's r......