People v. Smith

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Smith

159 N.W.2d 174, 10 Mich. App. 188, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1397

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 25, 1968

DocketDocket No. 2,050

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 N.W.2d 174 (People v. Smith) 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. Smith, 159 N.W.2d 174, 10 Mich. App. 188, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1397 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

J. H. Gillis, J.

Defendants, William Smith and Nancy Hall, were charged with haying committed the crime - of obstructing justice.

* In a non jury trial the defendants were, on March 29, 1966, convicted of the crime as charged.

On appeal defendants raise several issues for our consideration; however, in light of our decision, we need only discuss the following issue: Did the actions, comments, and conduct of the trial judge preclude the defendants from having a fair trial in violation of the due process provision of Const 1963, art 1, § 17?

A complete reading of this transcript readily discloses that the trial court took over the burden of cross-examining witnesses and the accused in a fashion normally exercised only by the prosecuting attorney. Additionally, the court, prior to the termination of the people’s case and before the defense had an opportunity to rebut it, substantially raised the bonds of each of the defendants, based according to this record solely on the court’s belief at this point of the trial that the defendant Smith had threatened to assault one of the witnesses. The threat was alleged to have taken place some 6 months before, on a date set forth in the information. In fact, the alleged threat of assault was an [190]*190integral part of the obstructing’ justice charge on which the defendants were then being tried.

Beversed and remanded for new trial.

Lesinski, C. J., and T. Gr. Kavanagh, J., concurred.

CL 1948, § 750.505 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.773).

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

J. H. Gillis, J.

Defendants, William Smith and Nancy Hall, were charged with haying committed the crime - of obstructing justice.

* In a non jury trial the defendants were, on March 29, 1966, convicted of the crime as charged.

On appeal defendants raise several issues for our consideration; however, in light of our decision, we need only discuss the following issue: Did the actions, comments, and conduct of the trial judge preclude the defendants from having a fair trial in violation of the due process provision of Const 1963, art 1, § 17?

A complete reading of this transcript readily discloses that the trial court took over the burden of cross-examining witnesses and the accused in a fashion normally exercised only by the prosecuting attorney. Additionally, the court, prior to the termination of the people’s case and before the defense had an opportunity to rebut it, substantially raised the bonds of each of the defendants, based according to this record solely on the court’s belief at this point of the trial that the defendant Smith had threatened to assault one of the witnesses. The threat was alleged to have taken place some 6 months before, on a date set forth in the information. In fact, the alleged threat of assault was an [190]*190integral part of the obstructing’ justice charge on which the defendants were then being tried.

Beversed and remanded for new trial.

Lesinski, C. J., and T. Gr. Kavanagh, J., concurred.

CL 1948, § 750.505 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.773).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 N.W.2d 174, 10 Mich. App. 188, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smith-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

J. H. Gillis, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack