*1 84 PEOPLE v FLORINCHI 1977, 14, Lansing. at December Docket No. 27855. Submitted De- 19, appeal applied to for. June 1978. Leave cided murder, second-degree Timothy L. convicted of Florinchi was Marutiak, Court, J. The defendant’s Peter Shiawassee Circuit reports discovery named of all of for motion denied, reports laboratory based on had been and of all officers reports had representations that all such prosecutor’s appeals alleging The defendant defense counsel. furnished to judge the trial reports and that had not been furnished all change denying of motion for in his discretion abused Held: venue. duty justice prosecutor did fulfill to see that tip by failing to to furnish the defense certain sheets done leading might produced jury to have evidence enter-
which guilt. doubt as to defendant’s There was tain reasonable denying change in the motion for of no abuse of discretion venue. remanded.
Reversed and J., P. hold that J.V. dissented. He would subject police "tip sheets” were not internal affirm the conviction. would [1-5, [4] [2] [6] Right Withholding Construction Change 23 Am Jur justice. 74 evidence case as change of venue. 33 ALR3d 17. Am Jur 7] Am Am 21 Am Jur of accused Jur Jur of venue: vitiating promotion 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, ALR2d and effect of References possession Evidence Prosecuting Venue Depositions suppression 2d, pretrial publicity conviction. 16. Criminal Law §§ state courts §§ §§ 58-60, for convenience of 771, prosecution. statutory Attorneys of evidence 34 ALR3d 16. Points in Headnotes Discovery et 84. in criminal case provision 225, seq. §§ inspection 7 ALR3d 8. by prosecution 26, 328. witnesses and 307§ 27. for et seq. or disclosure of in criminal the ends of ground for of venue v Florinchi Opinion of the Court 1. Criminal Law —Evidence—Production of Evidence —Issue Witnesses—Impeachment. Guilt —Control of Prosecutor — produced A entitled have all the evidence *2 trial bearing guilt on his or which the of innocence is within control prosecutor, including prior the statements of witnesses which may impeachment. for be used 2. Criminal Law —Constitutional Law —Due Process —Pretrial Discovery Preparation — of Defense. process require Considerations of due and fairness that a defend- pretrial discovery any necessary ant be allowed of information preparation defense; suppression by prosecutor of the the process. of evidence to an is a of favorable accused violation due 3. Criminal Law —Constitutional Law —Due Process —Evidence— by of Disclosure Evidence Prosecutor —Material Evidence. process requirement prosecution The due the that all disclose may ap- material evidence which be favorable to an accused plies might jury to evidence which lead a to entertain a guilt doubt a reasonable about defendant’s this and test should liberally be construed whenever there is for substantial room might doubt as to the effect disclosure have. Duty. 4. Criminal Law —Justice—Prosecutor’s done, prosecutor justice duty merely A has a to see that not to convict. Discovery—Police Reports Duty. 5. Criminal Law — —Prosecutor’s prosecutor, represented A once he to the trial that would court he bound, police reports, furnish a defendant with all became duty the of interest fundamental fairness and in of view his to done, justice place interpretation see to a broad on the term "police reports” giving away and err to on the side of too much little; prosecutor rather than too free is not to avoid a discovery by agreeing voluntary discovery order to and then arguing that the defendant is not entitled to or that by agreement within materials his control are not covered the they "tip because are denominated sheets” rather than reports. 6. of Discretion —Pretrial Venue —Motions—Discretion—Abuse Publicity —Burden of Proof. change A motion of for venue is addressed discretion court, and trial court’s decision will not be set discretion; showing aside a clear absent of abuse of the burden establishing prospective by jurors have influenced been venue, pretrial publicity seeking party is on the 84 (cid:127) Court exposed merely showing jurors have publicity is not in itself. sufficient Brennan, P. J. J. V.
Dissent Discovery— Gestae Witnesses — 7. Law —Witnesses—Res Criminal Reports. Tip Sheets —Police gestae part of a crime are not not of the res Witnesses who were prosecutor, produced required to be indorsed subject discovery by police "tip sheets’’ are internal police reports. as official A. Robert General, J. Kelley, Frank Attorney D. Los- and Gerald General, Derengoski, Solicitor tracco, people. for the Prosecuting Attorney, Tieber, Appellate De-
F. Martin State Assistant fender, appeal. defendant on J., F. P. and D. Walsh
Before: V. *3 JJ. L. and H. Heading,* convicted aby Defendant was H. L. Heading, 750.317, murder, MCL MSA second-degree of
jury to a term of 28.549, sentenced and was right, alleg- He as of appeals imprisonment. years proceedings in the below. errors ing several the murder of one charged Defendant Vincent, was found near body whose Jack in Rose- automobile blood-bespattered muddy and April morning in on the Park Owosso vear from multi- either apparently resulted 1975. Death back, caused by and chest ple stab wounds and of the chest knife, crushing large from run over having the result of possibly pelvis, in which the area muddy an automobile. tire numerous automobile body was found bore that as tracks, type of the same and blood * Appeals judge, sitting Court on the Recorder’s Court Detroit assignment. v Florinchi the Court bumper
victim on was found the front and front fender of the victim’s automobile. jacket
In the victim’s automobile found a were containing money, a small amount of the victim’s hunting belonging wallet, knife identified as to the type victim stained with blood of the same of the victim. Also found the mud body near the was a .38-caliber revolver similar to possession one seen in the of the victim on the evening body before was discovered. Defend- fingerprints ant’s were found the victim’s auto- mobile, on both the inside and outside of both car doors.
Rebecca Daniels testified that she danced with shortly midnight defendant at a local bar after on April accompanied 13, and him to a table where sitting, attempted the victim was where defendant obtaining money to enlist her aid in from the victim. She also testified that the victim asked her marry him. She testified that the victim offered something to sell defendant and that the two men object went outside sale, to look at join which time she left the table to other friends. testified that he had been in the company of Daniels, the victim and Miss but de- having get money nied said he wanted to from the victim. He testified that the victim offered to sell gun, they him a and that went to the victim’s entering through it, automobile to see both men the left door. closed, He testified when the bar accepted. the victim ride, offered him which he through At that time he entered the automobile *4 According the side defendant, door. to the they the victim bar, drove him to another where parted company. being closed, The bar walked home. remaining linking evidence defendant with the Court testimony women, of two
the crime consisted possession sale, for heroin both under sentence days after the told them a few that defendant had victim after the that he stabbed the murder to him. Defendant Vincent, made sexual advances victim having killed but main- admitted said he joke. only a tained the remark was testimony that the victim Other at trial revealed on eve- had been in ning local bar earlier another death, to sell a he offered before his where pistol He and several customers. bartender patron, Shane, to a one Patricia also asked woman marry go him, and to actions which out with him displeased boyfriend. Ms. Shane’s evidence that victim was
There was also relationship Carolyn engaged with one in a close relationship Donlan, of which Mrs. Donlan’s recently The victim had become aware. husband arranged to Donlan and had in fact called Mrs. evening, keep early but failed meet her appointment. The witnesses defense called two the victim had on two occasions who testified that told them that he carried anticipation weapon fight husband, encoun- Mrs. Donlan’s an expected only them he one of to survive. ter which trial, a motion dis- Prior to defendant filed reports covery officers and of all of named laboratory reports. denied all The motion was representations on the basis of court reports prosecutor all such that he had furnished to defense counsel. trial, there ex-
At it evident that soon became reports furnished not been isted which had notably, it revealed to defense counsel. Most during Barnes Bart cross-examination Detective furnished cer- counsel had defense tip sheets, on which the documents, known as tain *5 133 People v Florinchx the Court infor- information received from recorded way in some connected mants which Among tips investigation received of the case. the 1) tip by and recorded on were: sheets by allegedly against a man made decedent threat 2) brandishing April knife, 11, 1975; an on acquaintances incident which the victim told girl- expected run-in that he to have a 3) by husband; a citizen that friend’s a statement turn off its had seen the victim’s automobile he lights approximately light 1:45 and run a red 4) report April certain 13, 1975; and on a.m. park in the where the individuals had been named night during body of the murder. was found report persons revealed Some of possible presented as defense wit- witnesses were Others, however, were later in the trial. nesses having witnesses, reason of left unavailable as the state. long in this state that a
It has
law
produced at trial all
is entitled to have
guilt
bearing
innocence
on his
the evidence
prosecutor,
of the
is
the control
which
within
may
including prior
of witnesses which
statements
People
impeachment,
Dellabonda,
v
used for
be
(1933), People Davis,
486; 251
594
v
265 Mich
NW
(1884).
569;
362
52 Mich
18 NW
right
pretrial discovery in criminal mat-
origin.
however,
At common
ters,
more recent
is of
any
evi-
law,
to discover
defendant had no
People
prosecutor,
Johnson,
v
dence held
(1959).
619;
Considerations
Mich
NW2d
process
however,
fairness,
of due
and fundamental
develop
the courts
a rule that
led
things
was a
in evidence
admissible
of the
within the sound discretion
matter
People
supra,
Johnson,
Mara-
court,
v
v
84 Mich
Opinion of the Court
nian,
(1960).
361;
In the us, case now before defendant’s motion for discovery was denied by the trial court in an order which noted that the prosecutor had assured the court that all police reports had already been turned over Thus, to the defense. technically, prosecutor was under compulsion no to afford defense counsel access to potentially favorable evidence prior to trial.
. prosecutor argues tip sheets are not and, reports further, that defendant has no People v Florinchi Opinion of the Court However, to discovery. prosecutor has
duty
done,
to see that
justice
not merely to
convict, Farrar,
v
erred
denying his motion
for a
of venue.
Such a motion is addressed to the discretion of the
*7
court,
and its decision will not be set aside
absent
a clear
showing
discretion,
of abuse of
Ranes,
People v
63
498;
Mich App
The record does not reveal abuse of any discre- tion in the denial of a of venue. Pretrial publicity, although extensive, was not inflamma- Garland, biased, People tory or v 44 243; Mich App 205 (1972), NW2d 195 grounds, rev’d other 393 215; (1974). Mich Moreover, NW2d 45 exten- App by Dissent V. J. P. J. Brennan, dire only jurors sive voir revealed five who had knowledge about the case. failed to preserve has claim of regarding improper
error rebuttal of a testimony by timely objection officer trial. Defend- ant’s other claims of error are without merit.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial. Walsh, J.,
D. F. concurred. (dissenting). V. J. P. I concur my Heading’s brother opinion on all except issues pertaining prosecutor’s that failure to dis- close all and records witnesses defense counsel prior to trial. prosecution trial court ordered the sub- complete
mit a list of witnesses as well as all the to defendant. To police reports admissible the best of its did so. I ability, prosecution would only I prosecution’s position note share the part gestae witnesses who were not a of the res required the crime are not to be endorsed produced by prosecution and that internal police "tip sheets” are not discoverable as official See, "police reports”. regarding gestae res wit- Harrison, v nesses, 578, 44 Mich App 585- (1973). 586; See, regarding NW2d 900 internal Walton, sheets”, People v departmental "tip (1976). 485; 71 Mich NW2d matters, Beyond these the trial court also or- private dered a investigation to be conducted by an investigator paid hired investigation Shiawassee This occurred County. provided defendant valuable information. Gen- fact, erally, given defendant was wide latitude *8 regard to all he requested. develop completely was allowed to People v Florinchi Dissent V. J. P. J. theories the case. Because of extensive cross- jury counsel, examination defense knew the background every prosecution entire witness. prosecution Defense counsel and the delved thor- oughly previous police into the records of wit- Through nesses. defense counsel’s able and exten- any potential advantage cross-examination, sive gained by testifying against be a witness’s defend- exposed. ant was every short,
In defense counsel obtained advan- tage very strong prosecution, for his client which a admittedly based on evidence, circumstantial permit. would I thus find no error in the trial handling court’s consideration and of this I case. would vote to affirm defendant’s conviction.