People v. Seales

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Seales

168 N.W.2d 428, 16 Mich. App. 572, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1424

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 26, 1969

DocketDocket 4,437

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 168 N.W.2d 428 (People v. Seales) 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. Seales, 168 N.W.2d 428, 16 Mich. App. 572, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1424 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was tided before a jury for unlawful possession of marijuana. * On direct examination, defendant testified that during their confinement at the police station his friend Alvin Taylor told him he (Taylor) had thrown away a package retrieved by police officers and found to contain marijuana. On cross-examination the prosecutor asked defendant if he “* * * advised them [the police] of what Taylor told you?” Defense counsel promptly moved for a mistrial on the ground that this violated defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination. The court denied the motion. During jury argument the prosecutor stated: “Now, the normal thing would have been .that if he [defendant] was being accused of having marijuana and someone had admitted having marijuana, he would advise the police officer.” Defendant’s objection was overruled and the prosecutor then stated: “Now, however, after four or five months, he comes up with the story. These are all things to take into consideration.”

• These remarks constituted prejudicial comment upon defendant’s prior exercise of his well-recognized right to remain silent in the face of accusation or interrogation. Defendant was not required to speak and his exercise of his constitutional right may not he penalized.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

*

CLS 1961, § 335.153 (Stat Aim 1957 Bey § 18.1123).

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was tided before a jury for unlawful possession of marijuana. * On direct examination, defendant testified that during their confinement at the police station his friend Alvin Taylor told him he (Taylor) had thrown away a package retrieved by police officers and found to contain marijuana. On cross-examination the prosecutor asked defendant if he “* * * advised them [the police] of what Taylor told you?” Defense counsel promptly moved for a mistrial on the ground that this violated defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination. The court denied the motion. During jury argument the prosecutor stated: “Now, the normal thing would have been .that if he [defendant] was being accused of having marijuana and someone had admitted having marijuana, he would advise the police officer.” Defendant’s objection was overruled and the prosecutor then stated: “Now, however, after four or five months, he comes up with the story. These are all things to take into consideration.”

• These remarks constituted prejudicial comment upon defendant’s prior exercise of his well-recognized right to remain silent in the face of accusation or interrogation. Defendant was not required to speak and his exercise of his constitutional right may not he penalized.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

*

CLS 1961, § 335.153 (Stat Aim 1957 Bey § 18.1123).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.W.2d 428, 16 Mich. App. 572, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-seales-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack