Case Name: PEOPLE v. GRIFFEN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1971-10-19
Citations: 36 Mich. App. 368
Docket Number: Docket No. 9363
Parties: PEOPLE v. GRIFFEN
Judges: Before: Levin, P. J., and Quinn and Y. J. Brennan, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 36
Pages: 368–379

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. GRIFFEN
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Witnesses—Expert Witness — -Requested Witness — Surveyor.
Denial of defendant’s request to be furnished a surveyor to survey the area of the homicide charged to determine distances involved was not reversible error where the trial court furnished defendant with a city map, which contained pertinent distances, and photographs of the street block where the crime occurred.
2. Criminal Law — Witnesses — Requested Witness — Police Artist.
Denial of defendant’s request for the production of an FBI artist who had made a composite sketch for a police “wanted” circular of a man witnesses saw at the scene of the crime charged was not error where the artist was in Washington, D. C., at the time of defendant’s trial, the sketch was not introduced into evidence, and two eyewitnesses testified that the sketch did not resemble the man they saw.
3. Criminal Law — Instructions to Jury — Judge’s Comments — Undisputed Facts.
Trial judge’s comment, during his charge, that he did not believe the jury would have much difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that a felonious homicide had been committed and that the homicide was second-degree murder was improper, but not reversible error where the fact that a homicide had been committed was not disputed at trial and the defendant’s defense was that he did not commit the crime.
References for Points in Headnotes
.1, 2] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 348.
3] 53 Am Jur, Trial § 584 et seq.
'4] 53 Am Jur, Trial § 937 et seq.
5] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 310.
'6] 58 Am Jur, Witnesses § 620 et seq.
7] 53 Am Jur, Trial § 480 et seq.
8] 53 Am Jur, Trial § 469 et seq.
4. Criminal Law — Reading Testimony — Requested Reading.
Permitting portions of a prosecution witness’s direct examination testimony, relating to defendant’s statements made to the witness while they were in county jail together, to be read back to the jury without also reading that witness’s cross-examination testimony was not reversible error where there was no direct conflict between the witness’s testimony on direct and cross-examination and the jury had requested to be read only those portions that were read back.
5. Criminal Law — Proceeding in Propria Persona — Request to Dismiss Counsel.
Defendant was not denied his right to proceed in propria persona where the trial judge granted defendant’s request to dismiss assigned counsel who, at the judge’s request, remained to help defendant, if needed, and counsel did conduct the voi/r dire examination of the jury and cross-examined some witnesses.
Dissent by Levin, P. J.
6. Criminal Law — Witnesses—Credibility—Irrelevant Issues— Other Crimes.
The prosecutor, although allowed much latitude in cross-examining to test credibility, cannot bring out independent issues involving other alleged crimes that are entirely dissimilar both in nature and motive and have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue involved.
7. Criminal Law — Prosecutor’s Argument — Improper Argument.
.Prosecutor’s introducing into defendant’s trial for murder and arguing to the jury the defendant’s failure to register for the draft, defendant’s employment record, defendant’s alleged operation of a blind pig, defendant’s alleged ownership of handguns, the testimony of a prosecution witness that defendant had done something to the witness, who had formerly worked as a barmaid for defendant, and the prosecutor’s asking defense counsel in front of the jury why, after having been allowed to read the statement the prosecution witness had given the police about what the defendant had done to her, he had not cross-examined her concerning what was allegedly done to her exceeded the permissible bounds of cross-examination and argument; the meritorious issue of who killed the victim may well have been resolved against defendant because the jury was deflected from temperate consideration of the real issue by the introduction of irrelevant, inflammatory testimony.
8. Criminal Law — Prosecutor’s Argument — Improper Argument.
Prosecutor’s challenging defense counsel in the presence of the jury in a murder trial to explain why there had been no cross-examination concerning a prosecution witness’s testimony that she had once gone to the police and had given them a statement about what the defendant had done to her, even though defense counsel had been allowed to read the statement was impermissible as a challenge in the presence of the trier of fact to waive a legal right.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Cornelius J. Sullivan, J.
Submitted Division 1 September 9, 1971, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 9363.)
Decided October 19, 1971.
Leon Maurice Griffen was convicted of second-degree murder. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frcmk J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cabalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Angelo A. Pentolino, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Armand D. Rove, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Levin, P. J., and Quinn and Y. J. Brennan, JJ.

Opinion:
Quinn, J.
Convicted by a jury of murder of the second degree, MCLA § 750.317 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.549), defendant was sentenced and he appeals.
Two of the alleged errors relied on for appellate relief were not saved for review, namely: the claimed error in the charge of the court to the jury and the claim that the pretrial identification process vitiated the in-court identification.
Defendant's request for expert witnesses at trial was denied and this denial is asserted as reversible error. Defendant requested that he be furnished a surveyor to survey the area of the crime in order to determine distances involved. The trial judge furnished defendant with a survey map of the block in question which contained pertinent distances and photographs of the street. We find no reversible error in the denial of defendant's request for a surveyor.
An artist for the FBI made a composite sketch for a police "wanted" circular. Defendant requested production of the artist at trial. The artist was in Washington, D. C., at the time, and the trial judge denied the request. The sketch was not introduced in evidence and two eyewitnesses indicated that the sketch did not resemble the man they saw. Defendant's claim of reversible error in denying his request for production of the artist is not sustained by the record.
During his charge to the jury, the trial judge said:
"I may say that I don't believe this jury is going to have much difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that a felonious homicide was committed, and that the homicide was second-degree murder."
The comment was improper, and if the fact that a homicide had been committed had been disputed, it would require reversal, People v. Wichman (1968), 15 Mich App 110. However, the fact that a homicide had been committed was not disputed at trial. The contest was over who did it and defendant's defense was that he did not do it. If the comment was error, it was not reversible error.
During its deliberations, the jury requested that portions of witness Copeland's testimony relating to statements made by the defendant to Copeland in the county jail be read back to them. This was done and defendant objected because Copeland's cross-examination was not read. The trial judge overruled the objection and defendant contends this was reversible error. What the jury requested was read; there was no direct conflict between Copeland's testimony on direct and cross-examination. The reading of testimony back to the jury and the extent thereof is a matter of discretion, People v. Shuler (1904), 136 Mich 161, 167. This record does not establish abuse of that discretion.
Defendant requested that his assigned counsel be dismissed. This request was granted but at the judge's request, counsel remained to help defendant, if needed. Counsel conducted the voir dire examination of the jury and cross-examined some witnesses. Defendant's claim of reversible error because he was denied his right to proceed in propria persona is not sustained on this record.
Finally, defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial is not sustained on this record. Most of the turmoil, chaos, and confusion relied on to support this claim was created by defendant.
Affirmed.
V. J. Brennan, J., concurred.