People v. Spruell

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Spruell

233 N.W.2d 118, 61 Mich. App. 632, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1577

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 9, 1975

DocketDocket 19153

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 233 N.W.2d 118 (People v. Spruell) 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. Spruell, 233 N.W.2d 118, 61 Mich. App. 632, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1577 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinions

J. H. Gillis, J.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of receiving or concealing stolen property valued at over $100, MCLA 750.535; MSA 28.803. He was sentenced to a term of 3 to 5 years in prison and appeals as of right. Several issues are raised here, but only one merits discussion.

Following conviction, defendant filed a motion for a new trial. He contended that one Larry Howarth, a key prosecution witness, had testified falsely regarding a deal or bargain made with law enforcement officers and the prosecutor. Specifically, defendant alleged that the prosecutor agreed not to press charges against Howarth in approximately a dozen pending cases in exchange for Howarth’s aid in "cleaning up these cases” and for his testimony against defendant. Under Giglio v United States, 405 US 150; 92 S Ct 763; 31 L Ed 2d 104 (1972), defendant claims it was error for the prosecutor to suppress any evidence of this bargain made with Howarth.

[634]*634At the hearing on the motion for a new trial, the judge took extensive testimony in order to ascertain the terms of the agreement. He found that Howarth had agreed to "cooperate” by giving the police needed information on other cases. In turn, the police would not prosecute him. The trial judge further found that the bargain did not require Howarth to testify against defendant. Since these findings of the trial court are supported by the record and are not "clearly erroneous”, we are bound by them. GCR 1963, 517.

The trial transcript reveals that the jury in defendant’s case was fully apprised of the fact that Howarth was not being prosecuted in exchange for his cooperation. This being the case, there was no error under Giglio, supra.

Affirmed.

V. J. Brennan, P. J., concurred.

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

J. H. Gillis, J.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of receiving or concealing stolen property valued at over $100, MCLA 750.535; MSA 28.803. He was sentenced to a term of 3 to 5 years in prison and appeals as of right. Several issues are raised here, but only one merits discussion.

Following conviction, defendant filed a motion for a new trial. He contended that one Larry Howarth, a key prosecution witness, had testified falsely regarding a deal or bargain made with law enforcement officers and the prosecutor. Specifically, defendant alleged that the prosecutor agreed not to press charges against Howarth in approximately a dozen pending cases in exchange for Howarth’s aid in "cleaning up these cases” and for his testimony against defendant. Under Giglio v United States, 405 US 150; 92 S Ct 763; 31 L Ed 2d 104 (1972), defendant claims it was error for the prosecutor to suppress any evidence of this bargain made with Howarth.

[634]*634At the hearing on the motion for a new trial, the judge took extensive testimony in order to ascertain the terms of the agreement. He found that Howarth had agreed to "cooperate” by giving the police needed information on other cases. In turn, the police would not prosecute him. The trial judge further found that the bargain did not require Howarth to testify against defendant. Since these findings of the trial court are supported by the record and are not "clearly erroneous”, we are bound by them. GCR 1963, 517.

The trial transcript reveals that the jury in defendant’s case was fully apprised of the fact that Howarth was not being prosecuted in exchange for his cooperation. This being the case, there was no error under Giglio, supra.

Affirmed.

V. J. Brennan, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 N.W.2d 118, 61 Mich. App. 632, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spruell-michctapp-1975.

Opinions

J. H. Gillis, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack