People v. Spells

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Spells

168 N.W.2d 479, 16 Mich. App. 609, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1440

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 1969

DocketDocket 3,434

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 168 N.W.2d 479 (People v. Spells) 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. Spells, 168 N.W.2d 479, 16 Mich. App. 609, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1440 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

*610 Per Curiam.

Defendant, Benny Lee Spells, was convicted of first-degree murder, Laving been charged with murdering a certain Eftimias Yasilion in an attempt, with two eodefendants, to perpetrate an armed robbery in July, 1962. An extrajudicial statement of codefendant Page inculpated Spells. The statement was read into the record without objection by the defense; Spells was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine, as Page did not testify.

The mandate of Bruton v. United States (1968), 391 US 123 (88 S Ct 1620, 20 L Ed 2d 476) renders the reading of a non-testifying eodefendant’s inculpating statements invalid as a denial of the constitutional right to confront one’s accusers. Bruton extends to state prosecutions, and is retroactive. Roberts v. Russell (1968), 392 US 293 (88 S Ct 1921, 20 L Ed 2d 1100).

Defendant’s failure to object to admission of the extrajudicial statement does not preclude review. The practice in question was sanctioned at the time of trial. A motion for separate trial by the third co-defendant on the ground that the Page statement was prejudicial (which was denied in Spells’ presence) directed the trial court’s attention to the problem. See People v. Logie (1948), 321 Mich 303, 307. Review, though the error has not been saved, is proper where necessary to afford a defendant a fair trial. People v. Farmer (1968), 380 Mich 198, 208.

Reversed.

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

*610 Per Curiam.

Defendant, Benny Lee Spells, was convicted of first-degree murder, Laving been charged with murdering a certain Eftimias Yasilion in an attempt, with two eodefendants, to perpetrate an armed robbery in July, 1962. An extrajudicial statement of codefendant Page inculpated Spells. The statement was read into the record without objection by the defense; Spells was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine, as Page did not testify.

The mandate of Bruton v. United States (1968), 391 US 123 (88 S Ct 1620, 20 L Ed 2d 476) renders the reading of a non-testifying eodefendant’s inculpating statements invalid as a denial of the constitutional right to confront one’s accusers. Bruton extends to state prosecutions, and is retroactive. Roberts v. Russell (1968), 392 US 293 (88 S Ct 1921, 20 L Ed 2d 1100).

Defendant’s failure to object to admission of the extrajudicial statement does not preclude review. The practice in question was sanctioned at the time of trial. A motion for separate trial by the third co-defendant on the ground that the Page statement was prejudicial (which was denied in Spells’ presence) directed the trial court’s attention to the problem. See People v. Logie (1948), 321 Mich 303, 307. Review, though the error has not been saved, is proper where necessary to afford a defendant a fair trial. People v. Farmer (1968), 380 Mich 198, 208.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.W.2d 479, 16 Mich. App. 609, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spells-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack