People v. Rowan

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Rowan

255 N.W.2d 791, 76 Mich. App. 124, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 890

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 1977

DocketDocket 27648

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 255 N.W.2d 791 (People v. Rowan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Rowan, 255 N.W.2d 791, 76 Mich. App. 124, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 890 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

Allen, J.

We agree in full with Judge Quinn on issues 1, 3 and 4. On issue 2, we affirm for reasons different than the non-retroactivity rule of Beavers. In People v Plamondon, 64 Mich App 413; 236 NW2d 86 (1975), we held that warrantless secret tape recordings made even prior to the decisional date of People v Beavers, 393 Mich 554; 227 NW2d 511 (1975),¹ were inadmissible in evidence. But, the informant, Sergeant Jurkas, testified as to his face-to-face conversations with defendant. As was stated in Beavers:

"The admissibility of the informant’s testimony is in no way affected by ruling inadmissible the testimony of the two police officers. The warrantless monitoring and subsequent testimony of these two witnesses renders tainted the transmitted account of the conversation, but does not in any way prevent the informant from testifying as to the statement spoken to him directly. ” (Emphasis in original.) 393 Mich at 567.

The fact that Sergeant Jurkas refreshed his memory by referring to his own notes should not make his testimony objectionable. Prior to making his notes he would sometimes listen to the tapes but would then use his independent knowledge and refreshed memory in making the notes. Witnesses testifying from memory are traditionally allowed to refresh their recollection from their own prepared notes. Battle Creek Food Co v Kirkland, 298 Mich 515; 299 NW 167 (1941).

We remand for a hearing on the entrapment issue. If it is determined by the trial court that defendant was entrapped, defendant shall be dis[127]*127charged. If the trial court finds there was no entrapment, this case shall stand aifirmed. We retain no further jurisdiction.

D. E. Holbrook, Jr., P. J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allen, J.

We agree in full with Judge Quinn on issues 1, 3 and 4. On issue 2, we affirm for reasons different than the non-retroactivity rule of Beavers. In People v Plamondon, 64 Mich App 413; 236 NW2d 86 (1975), we held that warrantless secret tape recordings made even prior to the decisional date of People v Beavers, 393 Mich 554; 227 NW2d 511 (1975),¹ were inadmissible in evidence. But, the informant, Sergeant Jurkas, testified as to his face-to-face conversations with defendant. As was stated in Beavers:

"The admissibility of the informant’s testimony is in no way affected by ruling inadmissible the testimony of the two police officers. The warrantless monitoring and subsequent testimony of these two witnesses renders tainted the transmitted account of the conversation, but does not in any way prevent the informant from testifying as to the statement spoken to him directly. ” (Emphasis in original.) 393 Mich at 567.

The fact that Sergeant Jurkas refreshed his memory by referring to his own notes should not make his testimony objectionable. Prior to making his notes he would sometimes listen to the tapes but would then use his independent knowledge and refreshed memory in making the notes. Witnesses testifying from memory are traditionally allowed to refresh their recollection from their own prepared notes. Battle Creek Food Co v Kirkland, 298 Mich 515; 299 NW 167 (1941).

We remand for a hearing on the entrapment issue. If it is determined by the trial court that defendant was entrapped, defendant shall be dis[127]*127charged. If the trial court finds there was no entrapment, this case shall stand aifirmed. We retain no further jurisdiction.

D. E. Holbrook, Jr., P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 N.W.2d 791, 76 Mich. App. 124, 1977 Mich. App. LEXIS 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rowan-michctapp-1977.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack