Case ID: mich_384/html/0727-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Black, J. T. E. Brennan, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEOPLE v. EISENBERG
    Opinion op the Court
    1. This ease is controlled by People v. Hampton (1971), 384 Mieh 669.
    Concurring Opinion
    Black, J.
    See headnote 1.
    Dissenting Opinion
    T. E. Brennan, J.
    
      8. This case should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion by T. E. Brennan, J., in People v. Hampton (1971), 384 Mieh 669 at p 685.
    
    Appeal from Court of Appeals, Division 1, J. H. G-illis, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and Bronson, JJ., denying motion for a temporary remand to Wayne, Horace W. Gilmore, J., for an evidentiary hearing.
    Submitted April 8, 1971.
    (No. 12 April Term 1971,
    Docket No. 52,785.)
    Decided June 1, 1971.
    Walter A. Eisenberg was convicted of conspiracy to possess marihuana. Defendant’s motion for a temporary remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing was denied by the Court of Appeals. Defendant appeals.
    Trial court reversed and remanded for new trial.
    References por Points in Headnotes
    [1,2] (no reference)
    
      
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cabalan, Prosecuting' Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Patricia J. Boyle, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Campbell, Lee, Kursman & Leitman, for defendant.
   Per Curiam.

For the reasons stated in the majority opinion in People v. Hampton (1971), 384 Mich 669, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for new trial.

T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Adams, T. G. Kavanagh, Swainson, and Williams, JJ., concurred.

Black, J.

(concurring). Refer to the majority and minority opinions of People v. Hampton, ante respectively at 673 and 680. This appeal is controlled by the Court’s determination of Hampton, the question of retroactivity being the same and the same majority having determined that this defendant also should have the benefit of some sort of a Lyles jury instruction (see Lyles quoted and cited in People v. Cole [1969] 382 Mich 695, 719, 720).

I yield to the majority and leave to it the nature of whatever order of reversal and remand is desired for this case.

T. E. Brennan, J.

(dissenting). I would affirm for the reasons stated in my dissent in People v. Hampton (1971), 384 Mich 669 at p 685.