People v. Watson

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Watson

165 N.W.2d 288, 14 Mich. App. 272, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 897

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 26, 1968

DocketDocket No. 3,009

StatusPublished

This text of 165 N.W.2d 288 (People v. Watson) 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. Watson, 165 N.W.2d 288, 14 Mich. App. 272, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 897 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted of rape in 1961 by a jury. He claims that he was denied his rights as he was arrested without a warrant and held for 2 days before arraignment.' During this detention, he signed a confession which was used to impeach his testimony at the trial. A hearing was held in 1966 to determine the voluntariness of his confession. The court determined that his confession was voluntary and that the defendant had not been unreasonably detained, as the prosecutrix was hospitalized for 2 days and could not appear to identify him.

Even though both counsel stipulated to the settled record on appeal, because the stenographer who had [273]*273recorded the trial had died and no one could he found to transcribe his notes, defendant claims he has been prejudiced and should have a new trial. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), 378 US 478 (84 S Ct 1758, 12 L Ed 2d 977), upon which defendant relies, is not retroactive and does not apply. The case is distinguishable from People v. Hamilton (1960), 359 Mich 410.

A review of the record established that the'defendant’s rights were fully protected and the defendant’s rights were not prejudiced by the failure to have the stenographer’s notes transcribed.

Affirmed.

Fitzgerald, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Robinson, JJ., concurred.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted of rape in 1961 by a jury. He claims that he was denied his rights as he was arrested without a warrant and held for 2 days before arraignment.' During this detention, he signed a confession which was used to impeach his testimony at the trial. A hearing was held in 1966 to determine the voluntariness of his confession. The court determined that his confession was voluntary and that the defendant had not been unreasonably detained, as the prosecutrix was hospitalized for 2 days and could not appear to identify him.

Even though both counsel stipulated to the settled record on appeal, because the stenographer who had [273]*273recorded the trial had died and no one could he found to transcribe his notes, defendant claims he has been prejudiced and should have a new trial. Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), 378 US 478 (84 S Ct 1758, 12 L Ed 2d 977), upon which defendant relies, is not retroactive and does not apply. The case is distinguishable from People v. Hamilton (1960), 359 Mich 410.

A review of the record established that the'defendant’s rights were fully protected and the defendant’s rights were not prejudiced by the failure to have the stenographer’s notes transcribed.

Affirmed.

Fitzgerald, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Robinson, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 N.W.2d 288, 14 Mich. App. 272, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-watson-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack