Case Name: PEOPLE v. ROWAN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1977-06-07
Citations: 76 Mich. App. 124
Docket Number: Docket No. 27648
Parties: PEOPLE v ROWAN
Judges: Before: D. E. Holbrook, Jr., P. J., and Quinn and Allen, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 76
Pages: 124–130

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v ROWAN
Opinion of the Court
1. Searches and Seizures — Search Without Warrant — Tape Recordings — Evidence.
Secret tape recordings made without having first obtained a warrant prior to the Supreme Court’s decision which requires the prior procurement of a warrant for such participant monitoring procedures are inadmissible in evidence.
2. Searches and Seizures — Search Without Warrant — Participant Monitoring — Evidence—Admissibility.
An informant may testify as to statements spoken to him directly in conversations he had with a defendant even though the tape recordings made of such conversations and obtained through a participant monitoring procedure without the prior procurement of a warrant are inadmissible.
3. Evidence — Witnesses—Use of Memoranda — Refreshed Recollection-Tape Recordings — Independent Knowledge.
A witness testifying from memory may refresh his recollection from notes he himself prepared after listening to tapes of conversations between himself and a defendant, even though the tapes themselves are not admissible at trial, where the witness used his independent knowledge and refreshed memory to make his notes.
Concurrence by Quinn, J.
4. Criminal Law — Speedy Trial — Delay in Trial — Prejudice—Bail —Representation by Counsel.
A delay of 17 months between the arrest and trial of a defendant does not require reversal of his conviction where there is no showing of prejudice, where no demand was made for a speedy trial, and where the defendant was out on bail and represented by counsel during the time in question.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures § 24.
[2] 68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures § 61.
[3] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 65.
30 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 1080.
[4] 76 Am Jur 2d, Trial §§ 173-176.
[5] 68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures §§ 42, 44.
[6] 4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 413.
[7] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 218, 219.
5. Searches and Seizures — Participant Monitoring — Search Without Warrant — Tape Recordings — Prospective Application.
Prosecution witnesses may testify about taped conversations between a defendant and a police sergeant where the tapes were obtained without a warrant for a participant monitoring procedure prior to the Supreme Court’s holding which requires a search warrant for such monitoring but which applies prospectively to police conduct occurring after its decisional date.
6. Appeal and Error — Transcript—Final Arguments — Prejudice.
A trial court’s failure to make a record of the ñnal arguments of counsel in a criminal trial is not reversible error where the defendant fails to show prejudice sufficient to deprive him of a fair appeal due to the lack of a complete transcript.
7. Criminal Law — Defenses—Entrapment—Walker Hearings.
A defendant in a criminal trial is entitled to a Walker-type hearing outside the presence of the jury where the defense of entrapment is raised.
Appeal from Muskegon, Charles Larnard, J.
Submitted April 6, 1977, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 27648.)
Decided June 7, 1977.
Nathan Rowan was convicted of eleven counts of bribery and eleven counts of obstruction of justice. Defendant appeals. Remanded for a hearing on the entrapment issue.
If the trial court finds entrapment, defendant is to be discharged; if no entrapment is found, affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Robert C. Ward, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the people.
Bell, McSorley, Hudson & Daniel, P. C., for defendant.
Before: D. E. Holbrook, Jr., P. J., and Quinn and Allen, JJ.

Opinion:
Allen, J.
We agree in full with Judge Quinn on issues 1, 3 and 4. On issue 2, we affirm for reasons different than the non-retroactivity rule of Beavers. In People v Plamondon, 64 Mich App 413; 236 NW2d 86 (1975), we held that warrantless secret tape recordings made even prior to the decisional date of People v Beavers, 393 Mich 554; 227 NW2d 511 (1975), were inadmissible in evidence. But, the informant, Sergeant Jurkas, testified as to his face-to-face conversations with defendant. As was stated in Beavers:
"The admissibility of the informant's testimony is in no way affected by ruling inadmissible the testimony of the two police officers. The warrantless monitoring and subsequent testimony of these two witnesses renders tainted the transmitted account of the conversation, but does not in any way prevent the informant from testifying as to the statement spoken to him directly. " (Emphasis in original.) 393 Mich at 567.
The fact that Sergeant Jurkas refreshed his memory by referring to his own notes should not make his testimony objectionable. Prior to making his notes he would sometimes listen to the tapes but would then use his independent knowledge and refreshed memory in making the notes. Witnesses testifying from memory are traditionally allowed to refresh their recollection from their own prepared notes. Battle Creek Food Co v Kirkland, 298 Mich 515; 299 NW 167 (1941).
We remand for a hearing on the entrapment issue. If it is determined by the trial court that defendant was entrapped, defendant shall be dis charged. If the trial court finds there was no entrapment, this case shall stand aifirmed. We retain no further jurisdiction.
D. E. Holbrook, Jr., P. J., concurred.
Decided April 7, 1975.