People v. Sacharczyk

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Sacharczyk

16 Mich. App. 710

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 1969

DocketDocket No. 3,219

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 Mich. App. 710 (People v. Sacharczyk) 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. Sacharczyk, 16 Mich. App. 710 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals his jury conviction for resisting a police officer in discharge of his duty. MOLA § 750.479 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28-.747). At trial, after the defense rested, the prosecution, over defendant’s objection, called two unindorsed res gestae witnesses in rebuttal. The allowance of their testimony was reversible error. The witnesses had not appeared before. Furthermore, no attempt had been made to indorse the witnesses and no legal cause explaining the prosecution’s failure to indorse is evident in the record. See MOLA § 767.40 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 28.980); People v. Honenberg (1936), 274 Mich 698; People v. Rose (1934), 268 Mich 529; People v. Rimson (1966), 3 Mich App 713. Finally, the rebutting testimony was improper, since it tended to prove surrounding circumstances of the crime. People v. Rose, supra, 540.

Our ruling above makes unnecessary either an enlargement of the facts or a dissection of other issues.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals his jury conviction for resisting a police officer in discharge of his duty. MOLA § 750.479 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28-.747). At trial, after the defense rested, the prosecution, over defendant’s objection, called two unindorsed res gestae witnesses in rebuttal. The allowance of their testimony was reversible error. The witnesses had not appeared before. Furthermore, no attempt had been made to indorse the witnesses and no legal cause explaining the prosecution’s failure to indorse is evident in the record. See MOLA § 767.40 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 28.980); People v. Honenberg (1936), 274 Mich 698; People v. Rose (1934), 268 Mich 529; People v. Rimson (1966), 3 Mich App 713. Finally, the rebutting testimony was improper, since it tended to prove surrounding circumstances of the crime. People v. Rose, supra, 540.

Our ruling above makes unnecessary either an enlargement of the facts or a dissection of other issues.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Mich. App. 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sacharczyk-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack