People v. Szeles

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Szeles

171 N.W.2d 550, 18 Mich. App. 575, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1112

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 25, 1969

DocketDocket 1,916

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 171 N.W.2d 550 (People v. Szeles) 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. Szeles, 171 N.W.2d 550, 18 Mich. App. 575, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1112 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant asserts, he was deprived of a fair trial because the trial judge refused to permit a certain witness to be called in his behalf. Both prosecution and defense asked the trial court to exclude all witnesses before the taking of any testimony. ' The judge granted their-mutual request. The witness in question was an- iinindorsed witness who admitted hearing the command of the court excluding witnesses. It- appears ■ that she stayed in the courtroom and heard much of the testimony before defendant attempted to have her called in defense. We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusing to permit the witness to take the stand. . ' .

*577 Defendant also contends that certain gnns were improperly admitted as evidence. A landlady testified there were no gnns on her premises before defendant became a roomer. However, after his arrival she found the guns and informed the police. The guns were admitted as evidence by the court. We find no error here since the guns were introduced to show that they were, or could be inferred to be,-in the possession of the defendant and were not essential to the establishment of a conspiracy.

Deprivation of a constitutional right is asserted by defendant because a witness, who had testified at the preliminary, examination, refused to testify at the trial. The testimony of that witness at the preliminary examination was then read to the jury. The record discloses that defendant was represented by counsel at the preliminary examination and entered into extensive cross-examination of the witness at that time. The trial judge properly permitted the reading of the testimony on the preliminary examination given by this recalcitrant witness. CL 1948, § 768.26 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1049); People v. Pickett (1954), 339 Mich 294.

Conviction affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant asserts, he was deprived of a fair trial because the trial judge refused to permit a certain witness to be called in his behalf. Both prosecution and defense asked the trial court to exclude all witnesses before the taking of any testimony. ' The judge granted their-mutual request. The witness in question was an- iinindorsed witness who admitted hearing the command of the court excluding witnesses. It- appears ■ that she stayed in the courtroom and heard much of the testimony before defendant attempted to have her called in defense. We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusing to permit the witness to take the stand. . ' .

*577 Defendant also contends that certain gnns were improperly admitted as evidence. A landlady testified there were no gnns on her premises before defendant became a roomer. However, after his arrival she found the guns and informed the police. The guns were admitted as evidence by the court. We find no error here since the guns were introduced to show that they were, or could be inferred to be,-in the possession of the defendant and were not essential to the establishment of a conspiracy.

Deprivation of a constitutional right is asserted by defendant because a witness, who had testified at the preliminary, examination, refused to testify at the trial. The testimony of that witness at the preliminary examination was then read to the jury. The record discloses that defendant was represented by counsel at the preliminary examination and entered into extensive cross-examination of the witness at that time. The trial judge properly permitted the reading of the testimony on the preliminary examination given by this recalcitrant witness. CL 1948, § 768.26 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1049); People v. Pickett (1954), 339 Mich 294.

Conviction affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 N.W.2d 550, 18 Mich. App. 575, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-szeles-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack