On March 2, 1973, defendant Danny Arthur Ranes was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, MCLA 750.317; MSA 28.549, and first-degree murder in the perpetration or attempted perpetrаtion of rape, MCLA 750.316; MSA 28.548. On March 26, 1973, defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment on count one and life imprisonment in solitary confinement at hard labor on count two, the sentences to run concurrently. Defendant now appeals his convictions as of right.
Since defendant’s allegations of error relate to thе trial court’s evidentiary rulings and other procedural matters, a detailed recitation of the facts of this case is unnecessary, and thus only those facts рertinent to our discussion of the issues will be presented.
While defendant was absent from his jail cell taking a shower, the cell was searched by police. A deputy found some torn-up paper in the toilet. These pieces of paper, when put together, read as follows:
"Do you know any married woman who сould use $500 for taking the stand and saying she was with me on the night of the Howk killing? One who would have a reason to remember that (whatever the reason was) night that will stand up in cоurt and also remember that I had a bandaid on my left cheek and told her I scratched it while tearing down a garage. It has to be a Saturday night I was with her. She must be strong sо the cops can’t break her down no matter what they say or do. Also she will have to go to the newspaper office (Gazette) and look in the past issues for the date and all *271 the back pictures of me so she will know me when she sees me. Let me know as soon as you can as all visits and phone calls in new jail are to be taped. If you know of anyone at least get me her address so I can handle the mail through Contos. The money will come when my feet hit the strеets.”
This note was not introduced in the prosecution’s case in chief, but to rebut the testimony of defendant’s alibi witnesses. Defendant now claims this note was improperly admitted into evidence by the trial court. We disagree.
In
People v Moore,
"Defendant’s credibility had bеen brought into the trial by other witnesses. The letter and its contents were material on this issue. We adhere to the rule that the materiality and relevancy of evidеnce is within the discretion of the trial judge and an appellate court will not interfere unless there is an abuse. People v Sheehy,31 Mich App 628 ;188 NW2d 231 (1971); People v Doane,33 Mich App 579 ;190 NW2d 259 (1971). On the question presented we find no reversible рrejudice or abuse of judicial discretion.”
Such is the case here. Here a note was intercepted before it reached any third party. Defendant’s credibility had been brought into the trial by alibi witnesses and the note and its contents were material to the alibi issue. Under these circumstances, we do not feel thаt the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the note into evidence.
Defendant also argues that the note was inadmissible because it constituted evidencе of an en *272 tirely separate crime, unrelated to his case, namely, the procurement of perjury.
Recently, this Court in
People v Hooper,
"The grounds on which this evidence is admissible has been cоmmonly termed as being 'consciousness of a weak case’. In 2 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed), §278, p 120, the rule is stated as follows:
" 'It has always been understood — the inference, indeed, is one of the simplest in human experience — that a party’s falsehood or other fraud in the preparation and presentation of his cause, his fabrication or suppression of evidence by bribery or spoliation, and all similar conduct, is receivable against him as an indication of his consciousness that his case is a weak or unfounded one; and from that consciousness may be inferred the fact itself of the cause’s lack of truth and merit.’
"Michigаn has long followed this rule and held that evidence that a defendant has attempted to suppress testimony or induce perjury is admissible. People v Salsbury,134 Mich 537 ;96 NW 936 (1903); People v Adams,162 Mich 371 ;127 NW 354 (1910); People v Randall,294 Mich 478 ;293 NW 725 (1940). This Court recently reaffirmed this long-standing rule in People v Casper,25 Mich App 1 , 7;180 NW2d 906 , 909 (1970), wherein the rule was stated as follows:
" 'Michigan authority appears uniform in holding that actions by the defendant such as flight to avoid lawful arrest, procuring perjured testimony and attempts tо destroy evidence, while possibly as consistent with innocence as with guilt, may be considered by the jury as evidence of guilt.’
"Thus, in the instant case there was no error in allowing this testimony since it was proper evidence for the jury to consider.”
*273
Defendant’s next assertion of error is that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence photographs of the deceased, taken at the scene. Since probative value outweighed prejudice, no abuse of discretion occurred. Defendant contends that since the defense was alibi, the photographs were unnecessary and merely calculated to inflame the jury, сiting
People v Falkner,
Therefore, we сonclude that these photographs were "substantially necessary or instructive to show material facts or conditions” and not merely "calculated tо excite passion and prejudice”.
People v Falkner, supra,
685;
Defendant next maintains that the trial court erred in denying his motion for the production of documents and evidence. In denying the motion, the trial court stated:
"The court denies to the defendant the right to copies of all statements, reports, notes or tapes made or givеn *274 by witnesses except that if any statement, report, note or tape made or given by witnesses is used to refresh the recollection of the witness at the trial, then a copy shall be made available to the defense.”
GCR 1963, 785.1(2) expressly excludes the application of discovery rules in criminal cases. Furthermоre, the scope of discovery of a criminal case rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.
People v Brocato,
In the instant case, defendant failed to convincе the trial court that the requested discovery was necessary prior to trial. Also, the trial court’s order did not completely eliminate discovery. The cоurt did provide for the production of these requested materials if needed to refresh the recollection of a witness during trial and in addition defendant was afforded an opportunity for full cross-examination of witnesses at trial. Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting defendant’s pretrial discovery.
Defendant next predicates error on the fact that the trial court denied his motion for change of venue prior to trial. We disagrеe. While either party may be granted a change of venue "upon good cause shown”, MCLA 762.7; MSA 28.850, the denial of such motions rests in the trial court’s discretion. To set аside such a decision, a clear showing of abuse on the part of the trial court must be demonstrated.
People v Kochan,
Finally, we have closely examined the record in *275 the case at bar and considered the defendant’s remaining assignments of error. No error warranting or requiring reversal of defendant’s convictions has been disclosed.
Affirmed.