*1 1973] v HARLEY
PEOPLE Opinion of Court Jury Objection—Court to Rule. 1. Criminal — Law —Instructions objection-no language Exceptions error” of the court to the "no party may assign provides that no as error the rule whiсh give objects giving he or the failure to an instruction unless stating jury retires consider verdict thereto before objects grounds specifically to which he and the the matter injustice objеction, manifest results are made where 516.2). (GCR 1963, Jury Object— 2. Criminal Law —Instructions —Failure Strategy. Trial appeal regarding jury may raise an issue A defendant not request given in accordance with his and claim instructions defendant has no basis for instructions erroneous because produce strategy the results complaint failed where his he wanted. Jury—Hasty Verdict.
3. Criminal Trial — Law —Fair attеmpt hasty jury judge to coerce a A trial did not coerce or impatience judge where exhibited no verdict his remarks merely explained they to them that with rather they hour would bе unable to reach a verdict within an were county expense, and that would be neces- taken lunch sary to limit the cost of lunch. 4. Conduct —Interfer- Criminal Law —Witnesses—Prosecution Trial. еnce —Intimidation—Threats—Fair Interference, intimidation, and threats [1, [3] [4-6, [7] Abuse 532] 53 Am ALR Am Jur Am of witness 414. 53 Am Jur, Jur, 2d, Appeal Trial 958. References Jur, Trial 824. § Trial § § counsel as and Error 654. 459. Points ground § in Headnotes for new trial or reversal, 49 grounds for reversal witness constitutes since such actions usually deprive of his a fair trial. Law —Witnesses—Prosecution Criminal Conduct —Threats— *2 Fair Trial. deprive Threats made the witness did not a apprised the defendant a fair trial where trial court was witness, of these threats the existence the court in- any pertinent formed the witness that she should not hold back favоrably and the witness then testified to the defend- ant, clearly because record indicates the court’s assur- purged possible ances to the witness taint left prosecutor’s aсtions. 6. Law —Witnesses—Prosecution Criminal Conduct —Threats— Hesitancy Testify Timely Objection. — proper place question for The trial court is the a defendant to propriety prosecutor’s allegedly of a and effect actions in threatening opportu- witness because trial court has the nity any possible of the observe behavior witness and hesitancy testify appear which would not from the cold transcript. words of the Appeal Law — and Criminal Error —New Trial —Evidence— Weight Preserving — Question. question weight in the evidence a criminal is a сase appeal; cannot be for and raised the first time on matter necessary prerequisite. for new is a motion trial Burns, T. M. P. J.
Dissent 8. Criminal Law —Witnesses—Prosecution Conduct —Intimida- tion. It is for a indefensible intimidate a witness either in or out of court. 9. Criminal Law —Witnesses—Prosecution Conduct —-Intimidation —Harmless Error. meeting using question- A conduct in with a language, telling able the witness if she lied she would be prosecuted perjury, eventually evi- obtain crime, dence to convict her and of the and closing get other, by stating you way you "I’ll one or the and you county” don’t [defendаnt] leave the results reversible notwithstanding and not error harmless error the fact that the eventually testified because Harley People v op Opinion the Court the witness were sо actions toward offensive to judicial process an a sound affront the maintenance of process that integrity can never be
regarded error. as harmless Lapеer, Appeal Churchill, James J. from Lansing. 1973, 2 June Submitted Division 15160.) (Docket September 27, 1973. No. Decided uttering convicted of L. Richard appeals. publishing. Affirmed. Defendant Attorney Kelley, General, A. Robert Frank J. Derengoski, General, Clements, E. Martin Solicitor Attorney, Prosecuting Meth, B. and Edward Assist- people. Prosecuting Attorney, for the ant appeal. G, Nelson, P. A. for defendant on Dаvid *3 McGregor J., Burns, T. M. and and Before: JJ. Valkenburg,* Van L. J. The Richard Valkenburg, Van uttering by
Harley, guilty jury was found publishing, 28.446, 750.249; MSA was sen- MCLA years, appeals of 3 as of tenced to term to having for a made a motiоn new without trial. testimony
The first arises as result issue given that the chief the defendant to effect apologized hospital, called him in the lying getting checks, him about the into trouble straighten аnd then indicated During attorney. prosecuting matters out with judge instructions, the trial conference that such testi- he would instruct indicated that purposes only; credibility mony could be used for * by assign- Appeals judge, sitting circuit on the Court 6, Former Í963, pursuant Const art as amended § ment App 49 Mich Opinion of the Court however defense counsel insisted that it be consid- ered might as substantive since it benefit client. defense Naturally, counsel did not object given. to the instructions as Defendant now asserts that the court should have given the origi- nal version of the instruction. 1963, 516.2, light
In
GCR
is doubtful
if this
prоperly
issue is
before the Court. Exceptions
objection-no
the "no
error” language of 516.2 have
been made where
"manifest
injustice”
results.
Hunt
Deming,
581;
tor for his error no resulted there- we find that reversible clearly indicates the trial from. The record purged pоssi- the the assurances court’s actions. would left We ble taint for that neither a motion a mistrial note further made a new trial were before nor a motion for the taint left trial cоurt. If any hesitancy testify by gave actions rise appear not from the cold would witness which proper place to raise transcript, of the words the trial have been before question would opportunity to observe court who had the of the witness. behavior raised have been remainder issues
The lacking in found merit. examined and carefully improper remarks question Not preserved appellate not properly scope of review, remarks fell within the The tes- from the evidence. permissible inferences by defendant concerning an assault made timony defense introduced on one the witnesses was cross-examination; therefore defendant on counsel question complaint. cause for has no cannot is a matter of the evidence weight a motion for time appeal; for the first be raised Peo- See prerequisite. being necessary new trial *5 App 734 49 729 Miсh Burns, by M. Dissent T. P. J. v
ple Ragland, 34 Mich 192 NW2d (1971). sufficient There was if believed the jury, guilty beyond to find defendant a reason able doubt.
Affirmed. J., concurred. McGregor, (dissenting). T. M. Burns, J. While I concur with the majority that threats and gestae intimidation directed toward a res witness condemned, agree are be I cannot that action was not reversible error and does not man- date reversal.
It is prosеcutor indefensible for a intimidate Pena, or out of court. People either v witness 402, 406; 767, Here the record the prosecutor discloses met with questionable used language, told thе lied witness she she prose- would be cuted for perjury, he would eventually obtain evidence to her and the convict defendant of the crime, by stating closed "I’ll get you way one оther, or you Harley and Richard [defendant] if you don’t the county”. leave clear, inference was the witness towas either testify favorable for the or charges. face pеrjury part Such conduct on the reprehensible is ratio- under Pena, supra. nale
Notwithstanding the fact that even- tually testified
prosecutor’s conduct lightly cannot be classified as harmless error.
Not produced evidence against weak, extremely prose- cutor’s offen- actions toward the witness were so People v T. M. Burns, Dissent P. J. sive to judicial maintenance sound process such an affront integrity of the trial process that never can be regarded as harmless Robinson, error. 563; 194 *6 713-714 Therefore, I vote reverse and remand new trial.