Case Name: PEOPLE v. SPRUELL
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1975-06-09
Citations: 61 Mich. App. 632
Docket Number: Docket No. 19153
Parties: PEOPLE v SPRUELL
Judges: Before: V. J. Brennan, P. J., and J. H. Gillis and D. E. Holbrook, Jr., JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 61
Pages: 632–637

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v SPRUELL
Opinion op the Court
1. Appeal and Error — Criminal Law — Findings op Fact — Court Rules.
A trial court’s findings of fact in a criminal case will not be overturned where they are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous (GCR 1963, 517).
2. Witnesses — Criminal Law — Evidence—Agreement Not To Prosecute.
Admission of testimony against a defendant of a prosecution witness who agreed to cooperate with the police by giving them information about other cases in exchange for their not prosecuting him was proper where the jury was fully apprised of the exchange.
Dissent bv D. E. Holbrook, Jr., J.
3. Criminal Law — Witnesses—Prosecutors—Promises to Witness —Duty to Disclose.
The prosecutor has a duty to disclose any prosecutorial promises made to a key prosecution witness against a defendant if those promises are such that the witness’s motive for testifying would be affected.
4. Witnesses — Criminal Law — Promises to Witnesses — Prosecutors — Duty to Disclose.
The decision to bring to the attention of the jury plea-bargain agreements with a witness is a matter of defense counsel strategy and the disclosure of such a plea-bargain agreement to the jury is not required of the prosecution where the prosecution has disclosed the matter to the defendant and his attorney and has not allowed falsehoods to go uncorrected.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 841.
[2] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§ 563, 564.
[3, 4] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 558 et seq.
Appeal from Berrien, Julian E. Hughes, J. Submitted Division 3 January 6, 1975, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 19153.)
Decided June 9, 1975.
Murrell Spruell was convicted of receiving or concealing stolen property valued at over $100. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A Derengoski, Solicitor General, John A. Smietanka, Prosecuting Attorney, and John Jeffrey Long, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Globensky, Bleich & Peterson, for defendant.
Before: V. J. Brennan, P. J., and J. H. Gillis and D. E. Holbrook, Jr., JJ.

Opinion:
J. H. Gillis, J.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of receiving or concealing stolen property valued at over $100, MCLA 750.535; MSA 28.803. He was sentenced to a term of 3 to 5 years in prison and appeals as of right. Several issues are raised here, but only one merits discussion.
Following conviction, defendant filed a motion for a new trial. He contended that one Larry Howarth, a key prosecution witness, had testified falsely regarding a deal or bargain made with law enforcement officers and the prosecutor. Specifically, defendant alleged that the prosecutor agreed not to press charges against Howarth in approximately a dozen pending cases in exchange for Howarth's aid in "cleaning up these cases" and for his testimony against defendant. Under Giglio v United States, 405 US 150; 92 S Ct 763; 31 L Ed 2d 104 (1972), defendant claims it was error for the prosecutor to suppress any evidence of this bargain made with Howarth.
At the hearing on the motion for a new trial, the judge took extensive testimony in order to ascertain the terms of the agreement. He found that Howarth had agreed to "cooperate" by giving the police needed information on other cases. In turn, the police would not prosecute him. The trial judge further found that the bargain did not require Howarth to testify against defendant. Since these findings of the trial court are supported by the record and are not "clearly erroneous", we are bound by them. GCR 1963, 517.
The trial transcript reveals that the jury in defendant's case was fully apprised of the fact that Howarth was not being prosecuted in exchange for his cooperation. This being the case, there was no error under Giglio, supra.
Affirmed.
V. J. Brennan, P. J., concurred.