People v. Eddington

1972] 551 v

PEOPLE EDDINGTON Proofs—Evidence—Discretion—Photographs. 1. Criminal Law — people required present are not to any theory their ease proofs; evidentiary is alternate there no rule that a trial court failing require abuses its discretion exhaustion proofs prior admitting photographs alternate in evi- dence. 2. Criminal Law —Burden of Proof. upon people The burden is prove a criminal case to every charged. element of the crime Evidence—Pictures—Corpus 3. Homicide — Delicti —Discretion. showing Pictures victims, they found, depicted as murder corpus delicti and the admission of such is evidence the sound judge. discretion of the trial ^[8] [9] [10] "14,15] "11] 4] 13,16-18] 5] 7] 20^ 1] 2] 3] 21] 22] 19] 6] 12] 23' 40 Am Footprints 58 Am 40 Am Jur Am47 Am58 29 Am Jur 4 Am Jur 29 Am 29 Am 58 Am §§ 47 Am 40 Am 29 40 40 Am 5 Am 29 21 374, 377, 770. Am Jur Am 47 Am Am Jur Am Jur 47 Jur Jur Jur Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur Jur, Jur as Jur Jur Beferences Am 2d, Jur, evidence, 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, Searches Witnesses Witnesses Witnesses 2d, Searches 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, Jut, Appeal Arrest Evidence Evidence Homicide Evidence Evidence Criminal Law Searches and Homicide Homicide Homicide Homicide Evidence Searches 35 ALB2d 856. and Seizure and Error §§ § § § 624. 629. § § 621. § § 24, §§482, Points Seizures 692 et 785 et § 798. 12. § § _§ §§ 536. and Seizures 482 32. 786. Seizures § § 369; 488. § et seq. seq. § 397 § 21 et 488. seq. Headnotes 52 29 Am Jur et et 53. § seq. seq. seq. 54. 2d, Evidence Search —Probable Cause and Seizures —Reasonable 4. Searches —Shoes. by a and his examination of for a detective Search apartment was a reasonable one shoes in because defendant’s light in the all the actions were reasonable detective’s of dispatch the occasion circumstances he acted with the and apartment, where, approached as he defendant’s warranted freshly apartment prints leading to the he heel observed prints the snow, saw that fallen on examination close very morning that at he had seen the similar to the ones murder, compelling and for a new fact of a double scene knowledge already given had had he that was added the committed the him to believe defendant reasonable cause investigation murders, was called for the immediate situation, reasonably de- exigencies he believed the of the every right, hiding and had the fendant to suspected supported by probable cause, for to search discovery of killer, of shoes was not the result and the general was the course a search for evidence but seen for search defendant. — — — Previous Convictions 5. Witnesses Cross-Examination — Arrests Discretion. cross-examination, may upon A within witness be asked only concerning previous court, a sound of the not discretion brought against conviction, any charge but also as to serious convicted, indicted, but him he has been indicted not whether of- prison for another or and state arrested confined fense; in his own behalf a takes the stand where defendant subject is as to he to the same rules cross-examination as guilty though may him any show to be witness even it other 600.2158). (MOLA offense commission of another Appeal and Error —Record. 6. judge ruling of Proper time a steps should be taken at the record, part if that a is to see that it becomes made ruling appeal. to be considered on is Prejudice Credibility — — — 7. Witnesses Cross-Examination — — Arrests Discretion. way in such a that judge A his discretion trial should exercise testing guise of is cross-examined under defendant par- is jury credibility, prejudice this merely show propounded to ticularly question is true where a as the same nature pending charge an is of the arrest being is one for which tried. Miscarriage Witnesses —Cross-Examination—'Other Crimes — op Justice. design questions or effect of was

When not to elicit facts suspicion upon regard but to cast the witness with to the crimes, especially commission of other those of a similar having determined, nature, guilt no been the court should prevent control and limit such cross-examination so as to miscarriage justice. Prejudice—New Crimes — Trial. 9. Homicide —Other Defendant’s conviction two counts should be murder reversed and remanded for a new trial where crimes which, which he had not been tried tried and until guilty presumed innocent, found he to be were delib- erately intentionally injected trial; into the such tactics manifestly prejudice could jury. Opinion Concurring in Besult T. Kavanagh, J., M. C. and T. G. J. Kavanagh, op Evidence—Photographs Admissibility 10. Homicide — Victims — —Belevancy—Prejudice—Appeal and Error. Admitting photographs into evidence the the vic- deceased of first-degree a tims crime murder was reversible error of of they wholly pur- where were and irrelevant served no other pose prejudice than to the defendant. Appeal 11. and Searches Seizures — and Error —Constitutional Law. Admission shoes in was evidence reversible error of defendants they product illegal were the an search and seizure for of in rights (US violation Fourth Amendment of defendant’s Const, IV). Am

Dissenting Opinion Black, J. Apartment. 12. Arrest —Probable Cause — Detective, having probable having cause to arrest defendant a reasonable home, that was at was entitled belief defendant apartment enter lawfully and was on the defendant’s premises. 13. Searches and Seizures —Shoes—Evidence. Detective, having pair seen shoes his search of lawful having good reason to that such believe for defendant would, upon examination, prove

shoes to be those worn at a scene, properly carefully; murder the shoes more scrutinized required that he was the shoes and examine the heels lift identify in order to evidence crime did not trans- them as of his observations into an unconstitutional search. form Right Privacy, 14. and Seizures —Constitutional Searches Law — OF. prying implies in sense A “search” the constitutional into object places is hidden that concealed and that which for (cid:127)intentionally put has or been searched been hidden out for recognizes gist way; such a of definition protection protection Fourth afforded Amendment — privacy (US the individual unreasonable invasion from Const, IV). Am Right Privacy, 15. Searches of —Constitutional Seizures — Law. only type place, and, Not but seized of information consequently, intrusion, the means must be considered as determining parameters personal relevant factors privacy protected (US Const, Am the Fourth Amendment IV). Searches Seizures —Shoes—Constitutional Law. examining lifting Detective’s action in shoes and defendant’s their did not heels constitute search in the constitutional sense; “prying places there was no into hidden hidden, which is concealed” had nor as the shoes not been they intentionally way. put out of 17. Searches and Seizures —Shoes—Constitutional Law. Detective’s was conduct reasonable constitutional terms where lawfully reasonably he apartment, he defendant’s hiding believed to be in the and had every right, supported by probable cause, to search for suspected discovery killer and his shoes was of defendant’s general not the result a search evidence. of for Shoes—Evidence—Admissibility. 18. Searches and Seizures — pair lifting shoes, Detective’s actions he saw which of examining defendant, the course a search and of for legitimate their heels than involved no more restrained and investigative ample conduct undertaken on the basis fac- of justification tual properly into the shoes were admitted evidence. — — — — Photographs Murder Homicide Malice Evidence Admissibility — — Discretion. photographs corpses Colored two victims were admissible of of .depicted throwing where the helpful light scenes were on namely, a material crimes, with malice which the issue— murders, purposes two were committed clarifying and for of illustrating testimony relating appearance to the victims’ condition, particularly purposes substantia- for of ting people’s theory concerning the atrociousness of crimes, they or the malice with committed; which there no judge’s was clear abuse the trial discretion in admit- of ting them under and circumstances the case. facts of Murder—Evidence—Prejudice—Pending Charges. 20. Homicide — danger prejudicial was and over- of effect manifest whelming where evidence that had also been defendant charged only with suggest second double murder could jury to the repeated that career included as- defendant’s upon saults human life. Murder—Guilt—Innocence—Pending Charges. 21. Homicide — guilt was have entitled to his or innocence two Defendant specific charged; homicides determined he offenses required possibility risk conviction for unproven collectively suggested prior a series acts which reprehensible. that his career had been Murder—Cross-Examination—Pending Charges— 22. Homicide — Prejudice. only brought pending charges against counsel out the Defense knowing well on direct that examination defendant full people permitted question would be concern- ing charges on the murder cross-examination because of ruling by judge; not, however, trial this maneuver did open prejudicial to the took door cross-examination against regarding place pending two other double murder cases defendant. Pending — Impeachment — — —

23. Homicide Murder Evidence — op Appeal Miscarriage — — Charges Justice and Error Statutes. pur- impeachment charges pending Admission murder such evidence poses improper was error and the admission of 769.26). (MCLA justice miscarriage resulted in a (cid:127) Mich 551 Opinion op the Court Homicide—Fingerprint—Heel 24. Criminal Law — Print —Consti- tutional Law. question rights No Fourth and Amendment would have of Fifth raised, heen the link fingerprint murder had heen if print (US Const, IV, instead a heel V). Ams of from Appeal Court of Appeals, Division 3, J. H. P. and Gillis, J., McGregor and Quinn, JJ., revers- and ing remanding Saginaw, Fred J. Borchard, J. Submitted 6, (No. 1972. January January Term No. 1972, Docket 52,927.) Decided June 23 Mich App 210 conviction reversed.

William H. Eddington, Jr., was convicted on two of counts first-degree murder. Defendant appealed to the Court Appeals. of Reversed and remanded. The people appeal. Defendant cross-appeals. Con- viction reversed and remanded for new trial

Frank Kelley, J. Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, George Thick, E. Solicitor General, II, and Donald Prosecuting A. Kuebler and Attorney, Miller, Paul G. Jr., Special Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for the people.

James A. Brisbois R. (Philip Sturts and Jerold Israel, H. counsel), defendant.

Amicus Campbell, Curiae: Lee, Krusman S Leit- man.

Adams, J.

I. Statement Facts On February 4, 1967, officer the Sagi- Shelby naw Police Department was told Howard Me- Eddington that Ronald

Clain, informer, an Johnson had been involved the murder William 2, 1967, Dr. Mrs. Claytor February Mrs. Caldwell armed Goldie robbery 25, on January tenant, Prince, her Jack the murders of Mr. and Mrs. 5,1967, On February Shelby were discovered and became Middeldorf in the Mrs. investigation involved of those crimes. was in found drowned the bathtub. Mr. Middeldorf was Middeldorf found bound his hands and feet at around plastic wrapped head, with his tightly puncture several on his and a steak body, wounds in knife his back. was shown a distinctive Shelby heel left the print by the murderer in bathroom near the bathtub where Mrs. Middeldorf was found. print The had been dusted with fingerprint powder to make it more The readily print visible. was distinctive because, even from man’s though shoe, it had a narrow heel. the Shelby print described as from a coming “Stetson shoe”.

By evening 5, Shelby felt that February was in Eddington involved all three crimes because of the information from the informant concerning the Claytor murders and the Caldwell residence robberies and because Mr. Prince had identified Eddington as man who robbed him. The Clay- tors and the were elderly Middeldorfs both couples, living alone. The men signs showed of having been tortured prior to death. The bound victims had been bound with taken items from the ties, homes — plastic rope, and The lamp cords. victims, other than those who were shot, were the use of killed items water, hammer, and plastic, a homes — a steak knife. In several other Eddington robberies suspected was a back committing, had door glass been broken as a In means gaining entry. Caldwell robbery, gun been had behind placed Claytor Dr. Both Mrs. left ear. Mrs. Caldwell’s pis- A behind left ear. small caliber shot robbery Caldwell and in tol had been used Claytor informant, McClain, murders. had Shelby .22 Ronald Johnson had a caliber told pistol that attempts gun, retrieve this that, possession McClain learned that had it. speaking p.m. Mr. Prince around 9

After with Shelby February Saginaw County asked prosecutor against Eddington to issue warrants for the Johnson robberies and the murders. Shelby should arrest decided, however, It Eddington only for the residence Caldwell robberies. Accompanied Shelby several went to officers, Eddington’s apartment. prosecutor yet had requested Eddington’s a warrant for arrest. police approached Shelby apartment,

As the Eddington’s parked nearby noticed prints car and shoe apartment, leading to the the heel of which print was similar to the the home of the Middel- at Eddington’s Shelby dorfs. When first knocked at apartment, no one Then a female voice answered. Shelby asked who him- was there. When identified Eddington, self and asked to see woman stated gone. Shelby he had about leave, As was opened door, woman called him back name, Shelby apartment. through and allowed look Eddington’s The woman Hawkins, was Johnetta girl friend. apart- Shelby

When Miss Hawkins into the let Shelby nightgown. she in a had ment, was clad apartment concluded she lived at the he because frequently Eddington’s had seen her residence at previous carrying packages on out occasions driving Eddington’s apart- and from the car to ment. Eddington Shelby his entrance,

Previous to had heard rust- lings people. he believed to made two He Hawkins not believe Miss when she did Eddington stated that proceeded not at was home and to look apartment. going through large a While from via a to a room, bedroom closet smaller he noticed pair sitting upright of men’s shoes on the closet up picked floor. He the shoes, examined them, prints saw that the heels were similar to the heel apartment. By shining he seen had .outside flashlight on shoes, he observed slivers what appeared glass to be imbedded in the He shoes. replaced the shoes as he was certain he had a legal right apart- to take them. officers The left the ment. prosecutor

Thereafter, and the officers went justice peace. Shelby to the home of a local obtained an arrest warrant based on the Caldwell robbery charge authorizing search warrant Eddington’s apartment a search of for the shoes and police pistol. Edding- a .22 The caliber re-entered ton’s and seized the shoes. robbery was on arrested the armed

charge February on A 8, for his warrant on arrest the Middeldorf murders issued Feb- ruary 14, 1967. robbery charge pre- was dismissed at the

liminary Separate preliminary examination. exam- charges first-degree inations were held homicide of Mr. and At Mrs. Middeldorf. both hearings, the state introduced evidence, and into heavily upon, by Shelby. relied found shoes subsequently Defendant was over for bound trial charges. Upon change the homicide an order for place Wayne County trial venue, the took in the Circuit Court. trial, defense counsel made motion to

Prior to motion shoes evidence. The suppress the from for subsequently asked people but granted, reconsideration. an evi- granted Following court its prior the circuit set aside dentiary hearing, substituted an order defense denying order and motion. court concluded: 1) counsel’s Shelby cause to arrest for both Eddington had probable the Caldwell robberies and the Middeldorf murders he had been prior entering apartment; 2) to apartment invited to look through dress”; in a 3) “a woman clad he had by night made a reasonable examination of the shoes.

At trial the shoes were again introduced into evidence. The prints at the Middeldorf home were shown to be similar to the prints made shoes. particles The refractive index of im- found glass bedded in the shoes was shown to be identical broken that of the window from glass the back door of the Middeldorf home.

Five pictures colored bodies of the Middel- dorf s were allowed in evidence over objection. The witnesses who verified the pictures testified bindings, plastic knife had not been changed. Neither had been body touched any autopsies.

The defense called two to testify witnesses as to reputation Eddington’s for truth community and veracity. Eddington, himself, took the stand. He as testified to a conviction service and a misdemeanor $15 conviction. Defendant further stated that he had “four five pending” or charges against him, one of which had been prior dismissed the date the present trial.

On Eddington was asked about cross-examination, nature the charges. Objection ques- to this tion by defense counsel was overruled. Eddington

thereupon pending charges revealed that the in- entering another double an murder, cluded without breaking, entering. breaking and a guilty by jury

Defendant found of the first-degree murders of Mr. and Mrs. Middeldorf.

Upon appeal Appeals, to the Court of after oral argument, attorney defendant’s submitted an affida- vit which stated that a confer- trial, judge concerning scope ence with the trial Eddington’s pending charges, cross-examination of “[T]he advised Court the Prosecutor that he con- ground risky him pursuing sidered to be on * * * cross-examination in that area; that the proceed Prosecutor could in that area at his own people risk.” opposing filed a letter the court’s parte consideration of ex affidavit. Appeals

The Court of reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case new trial, hold- ing judge improperly the trial allowed cross-exam- by prosecutor ination pending charges. as to the (23 App 210.) granted Mich people We leave appeal. (384 755.) Defendant cross- appeals.

II. Issues Raised A. Did the pic- admission into evidence of the five corpses tures the two constitute reversible error being prejudicial as inflammatory being and as prove nonessential a matter “in issue”? Appeals The Court photographs held the properly admissible to show “the malice with which the crimes clarify were committed,” and to “testimony relating illustrate appear- to the victims’ ance and gruesome condition”. Since “the nature photographs” depicted left the bodies as Mich op Opinion the Court intervening medical exam- and not- assailant photographs could not admission iners, judge’s discretion. an abuse of the trial be said to be several is claimed that because this it case, In regard with to the could have testified witnesses it was committed defense admitted crime and the judge discretion in ad abused his with mitting the malice, Rogers, People pictures. In v the Judge (now Justice) (1968), App T. G. 207, 217 Kavanagh wrote: require “Having alterna- exhaustion of failed to photographs, admitting prior proofs the the to

tive court its discretion.” trial abused evidentiary agree an such are unable to with We required present people their are to rule. The not proofs. theory any of alternative case people upon the In criminal the burden is case, charged. prove every These element of the crime to they any pictures more are not nice but are not testimony gruesome of than some the witnesses. they pictures found. victims as The showed the corpus pictures depict admis- The delicti. of discretion in the sound sion of such evidence is judge. the trial pp § Evidence, 29 Am is Jur 2d,

It stated 860-861: merely “Photographs to arouse calculated are prop- jury sympathies prejudices are or of the they erly particularly are not substan- if excluded,

tially necessary facts material or to show instructive photographs If disclose or conditions. which gruesome aspects or a crime are of an accident any competent, pertinent, material on or relevant, solely purpose in the and serve the issue inflaming case jurors prejudicing minds of the against they ad- not be should accused, them photographs are if However, mitted evidence. op Opinion the Court for a proper purpose, otherwise admissible are they merely because they not rendered inadmissible bring the details jurors to or gruesome vividly crime, or even shocking though they accident may or prejudice jurors. arouse passion tend to the fact that Generally, also, is more photograph an oral description, effective than and to that extent passion and prejudice, calculated render excite does not it inadmissible in evidence. is photograph

“When a offered the tendency of which may prejudice be to the jury, its admissibility in the discretion of lies sound the court. It may if be value admitted its as evidence its outweighs possible prejudicial effect, or may excluded if its effect well prejudicial may outweigh proba- its tive value.”

B. Was there an illegal seizure pair shoes contrary defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights when the seizure of shoes 1) fruit: a nighttime entry into defendant’s officers who had probable cause to make an arrest, but lacked an warrant; arrest of an 2) examination of defendant’s closet the entry following which an officer picked up the shoes and turned them over to examine heels 1

Judge J. H. Gillis, writing Court of Appeals, carefully detailed the activities of Detec- tive Shelby leading up the examination of the shoes. After examining certain authorities as to what a constitutes search, he concluded 225- (pp 226): of these “Application principles here leads us to

our view that Detective action in Shelby’s lifting defendant’s shoes and examining their did not heels constitute a search in the constitutional sense. We find no ‘prying into hidden places for that which is concealed.’ The shoes had not been nor hidden; were they intentionally out of put Under way. 551 Mich 564 appear that defendant does circumstances, it privacy subjective expectation of as to a exhibited Bradley (1969), People 1 Cal 3d v. his shoes. Cf. 131). (81 Rpt P2d More 129, 460 457, Cal 80 over, 459; any expectation would have been unrea such adjusted to view the values are not sonable. Our province of intimate as within the of shoes heels personal control.” reasoning agree with of this are unable to We People opinion. portion Trudeau, In 385 of the recognized right (1971), this Court Mich privacy, prison, person’s as to shoes. even while facts. In Each must be examined on its own case in this the search Trudeau, case, unlike the situation probable upon a mere sus- cause, without based picion and the officer under circumstances where if could have obtained probable warrant there was search one. cause issue opinion Appeals of the continues Court of (pp 226-227): as follows “ warrant obtained, Where a has not been

validity depends appraisal of the search on the law’s only of the unreasona- search, reasonableness being ble warrantless barred.’ searches seizures People supra, App [13 McDonald, v. Mich (1968) ] at People (1959),

“And Gonzales 356 Mich see v. Zeigler People (1960), 247, 253; v. 358 Mich supra App [19 375; Herrera, v. ' Shelby’s (1969) ]. record we hold conduct On this terms. to be reasonable constitutional previously Shelby was “As Detective indicated, reasonably apartment. lawfully He in defendant’s hiding to be believed defendant every supported probable right, cause, and had Shelby’s suspected to search for covery killer. dis- the general of the of a shoes was not the result pair search for seen of shoes was Rather, evidence. Eddington. of the the course search for Eddington 565 v subsequent- Shelby’s lifting view, In actions onr examining their heels involved no the shoes investigative ‘legitimate and more than restrained ample undertaken on basis of factual conduct justification.’ Terry supra, [392 Ohio, 1; v. US (1968)] L20 13.” 1868; Ct Ed 2d at S agree analysis with the above and hold We point the search was a reasonable one. The should Shelby’s stressed. actions reasonable light all circumstances. When the approached Eddington’s apartment, officer observed leading prints freshly heel to the fallen snow, and, examination, close saw that the prints were similar to ones he had seen that very morning at the scene of the murders, new compelling knowledge and already fact was added to the he given

had that had him reasonable cause Eddington to believe committed murders. His investigation further immediate was called for exigencies Terry Ohio, situation. (1968). 1; 1868; US search for 88 S Ct 20 L Ed 2d 889 In his and his examination reasonably dispatch shoes, he acted and with the the occasion warranted.

C. Did the trial court commit reversible error in permitting prosecution, on cross-examination of impeach through defendant, seek previous charges (including reference to two other charges) pending against murder that were defend- ant? Appeals’ opinion Court (pp states 231-

232): pending “We hold that admission of the murder charges impeachment purposes was improper Fur- error. thermore, we are satisfied that the admis- sion miscarriage of such evidence resulted in a justice. § (Stat § MCLA 769.26 Ann 1954 Kev 28- 551 Mich 566 op Opinion the Court credibility Eddington’s question The .1096). _ to char- we decline record, on this and, critical, of defendant’s impeachment improper acterize is especially This error. harmless credibility as subsequently ac- defendant was since here, true Claytors.” murdering charges of the quitted rule, by way both evidentiary Michigan in 1 G-illespie, stated law,2 case as statute1 and ed), § & (2d Law Procedure Criminal Michigan follows: p 534, is as cross-examination, asked may

“A witness court, only discretion within the sound any also as to but previous conviction, concerning he has him whether against charge serious brought or arrested convicted, indicted but not indicted, been another offense. prison confined in the state behalf the stand his own takes Where rules to cross-examina- he is the same as subject show though it may other witness even any tion as of another of the commission him to be guilty offense.” do

In on this we not consider the question, passing to estab- attorney ex of defendant’s parte attempt level and in this Court lish of Appeals’ at the Court con- place an in-chambers took at purportedly what If a lawyers. judge ference between on appeal, is to be considered ruling judge is made should at time it be taken proper steps it of the record. part to see that becomes own defense. called to his Defendant was testify if he was asked examination, the direct During an- him and against other charges pending cross- he had or five On pending. swered that four asked: examination, prosecutor 600.2158; 1 MOLA MSA 27A.2158. 2 People Foote, People, 93 Driscoll v See, (1882); v Mich 413 47 People People Foley, v (1941); 299 (1892); 38 358 Mich Mich v Roger Johnson, (1969). you yon if “Q. Mr. Brisbois asked were—if Now, charges any against you pending there were at the you present yes. time and answered “A. Yes. << you charged

“Q. And it is a fact are also double murder other than in a the one that we have present time? at the

“Mr, counsel]: {defense Brisbois If the Court interpose please, objection we an to this. The re- spondent has stated on direct examination that he charges pending gave has other and I believe he charges. the number of other We feel that it would inquire beyond be erroneous allow counsel to to that. attorney]: {assistant prosecuting “Mr. Dent you Counsel—are finished? On direct examination jury he did not advise the of the nature of these charges. going objection.

“The Court: I am overrule to Proceed.” prosecutor thereupon continued cross- his questions pend-

examination with further as to the ing charges. From the it will above, be seen that open the issue was raised court and that judge objection. did rule judge

A trial should exercise his discretion such way that a is not cross-examined, under guise testing credibility, merely prejudice to jury. particularly question This is where a true propounded pending is to show that an arrest and charge is of the same nature as the one for which being he is tried. Unless cross-examination as to pending charges carefully possi- is controlled, bilities for abuse, as illustrated are case, this great. Eddington was not on trial the murders Claytor entering of Dr. and Mrs. or for or for breaking entering. and Yet which crimes for these Opinion by T. G-. Kavanagh, J. which, until tried and of been tried he had not presumed guilty innocent, he was found deliberately intentionally injected trial into the preju- manifestly could Such tactics case. this ques- design jury. or effect dice a When upon suspicion facts but cast to elicit tions is not regard of other to the commission with the witness guilt especially nature, no similar those crimes, having court should control determined, been prevent a so as to cross-examination limit such justice. People Gotshall, 123 miscarriage See (1900). Mich 474 is the case is reversed and conviction

Defendant’s for a new trial. remanded JJ., T. E. Williams, Swainson, Brennan, J. concurred Adams, with result). {concurring I in con- J. T. GL Kavanagh, my by Brother result reached in the Adams, cur disagree reasons. his stated I with but error that it was reversible I am satisfied First, photographs deceased victims admit the wholly They and irrelevant were of this crime. prejudice purpose than no other served defendant. de- of the they I the admission convinced

Second, am for was reversible error shoes fendant’s product illegal seizure of an search rights. Amendment of defendant’s Fourth violation photographs and the I bar the retrial On would shoes. T. Gr. with concurred J.,

T. M. C. Kavanagh, J. Kavanagh, 569 v Harris Johnston I J. with agree the reason- (dissenting).

Black, (People made Division 3 ing disposition Eddington, 23 Mich v App [1970]) there- affirm. fore vote to pertinent to one of See, salient questions below, considered the dissenting view T. E. Brennan recorded Justice and myself Trudeau, v for (1971).

JOHNSTON HARRIS op Opinion the Court Negligence op 1. —Unreasonable Risk Harm —Criminal Law— Third Persons. An or an may negligent act omission be if the aetor realizes or realize that it should involves an unreasonable risk through harm to another other or conduct of the person is though third which harm intended to cause even such is conduct criminal. Negligence 2. —Torts—Criminal Law —Third Persons. person committing act a third an intentional tort or superseding crime is a resulting cause of harm to .Another therefrom, although negligent the actor’s conduct created a situation which opportunity afforded an person to the third to commit crime, such a tort or unless the aetor at the time negligent his conduct realized or should have realized might likelihood such created, a situation person might that a third opportunity avail himself of the to commit such a tort or crime. ^[5] [1-4] ^[6] Landlord’s Landlord’s 58 Am Jur 2d, Negligence third third Am Am Jur Jur, obligation persons, obligation persons, References 2d, Trial Landlord 43 ALR3d 331. § 99 et ALR3d protect protect Points and Tenant § seq. §§ tenant tenant 41, 63, 206, against against Headnotes 800 et criminal activities criminal activities seq.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Eddington

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 20, 1972

Citation: 198 N.W.2d 297

Docket Number: 13 January Term 1972, Docket No. 52,927

Court Abbreviation: Mich.