People v. Tinskey

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Tinskey

220 N.W.2d 53, 53 Mich. App. 667, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 1190

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 24, 1974

DocketDocket 11582

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 220 N.W.2d 53 (People v. Tinskey) 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. Tinskey, 220 N.W.2d 53, 53 Mich. App. 667, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 1190 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Danhof, P. J.

This cause was remanded to our Court by order of the Supreme Court dated April 18, 1974, for reconsideration in light of People v Turner, 390 Mich 7; 210 NW2d 336 (1973). The first decision by this Court is reported at 49 Mich App 497; 212 NW2d 263 (1973).

In Turner, our Supreme Court rejected the subjective test for entrapment and accepted Justice Stewart’s dissenting opinion in United States v Russell, 411 US 423; 93 S Ct 1637; 36 L Ed 2d 366 (1973).

This Court upon remand has reconsidered this cause in light of Turner and does hereby reaffirm its original opinion affirming defendants’ convictions of conspiracy to commit abortion in violation of MCLA 750.14; MSA 28.204 and MCLA 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1). Defendants were convicted, by a jury of this offense on February 10, 1971. The Turner case was decided in September of 1973, approximately 2-1/2 years later. In People v Gaines, 53 Mich App 443; 220 NW2d 76 (1974), a panel of this Court held that Turner was to be applied prospectively:

"We hold that until the Supreme Court clearly mandates that Turner is to be applied retroactively, we must approach this on the basis of the standards which were applicable prior to Turner. To do otherwise would have a highly detrimental effect on the administration of justice. This seriously disruptive effect predisposes a prospective application, in a fashion not dissimilar to the United States Supreme Court’s refusal to apply Miranda and Escobedo retroactively.”

*669 In this cause, under the standards applicable prior to Turner, we cannot say as a matter of law that defendants were entrapped.

Affirmed.

McGregor, J., concurred. Miles, J., did not participate.

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

Danhof, P. J.

This cause was remanded to our Court by order of the Supreme Court dated April 18, 1974, for reconsideration in light of People v Turner, 390 Mich 7; 210 NW2d 336 (1973). The first decision by this Court is reported at 49 Mich App 497; 212 NW2d 263 (1973).

In Turner, our Supreme Court rejected the subjective test for entrapment and accepted Justice Stewart’s dissenting opinion in United States v Russell, 411 US 423; 93 S Ct 1637; 36 L Ed 2d 366 (1973).

This Court upon remand has reconsidered this cause in light of Turner and does hereby reaffirm its original opinion affirming defendants’ convictions of conspiracy to commit abortion in violation of MCLA 750.14; MSA 28.204 and MCLA 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1). Defendants were convicted, by a jury of this offense on February 10, 1971. The Turner case was decided in September of 1973, approximately 2-1/2 years later. In People v Gaines, 53 Mich App 443; 220 NW2d 76 (1974), a panel of this Court held that Turner was to be applied prospectively:

"We hold that until the Supreme Court clearly mandates that Turner is to be applied retroactively, we must approach this on the basis of the standards which were applicable prior to Turner. To do otherwise would have a highly detrimental effect on the administration of justice. This seriously disruptive effect predisposes a prospective application, in a fashion not dissimilar to the United States Supreme Court’s refusal to apply Miranda and Escobedo retroactively.”

*669 In this cause, under the standards applicable prior to Turner, we cannot say as a matter of law that defendants were entrapped.

Affirmed.

McGregor, J., concurred. Miles, J., did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 N.W.2d 53, 53 Mich. App. 667, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 1190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tinskey-michctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack