Opinion ID: 1720276
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: This case concerns an attack upon Mr. Anderson, the complaining witness, by three men. The day after the attack Mr. Anderson called the police to inform them that he had seen his attackers. The police then accompanied Mr. Anderson to a poolroom where he pointed out the defendants. At trial Mr. Anderson and a police officer were permitted, over objection, to testify to the circumstances of the poolroom identification. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error. We agree. At the conclusion of the trial, defense counsel requested special jury instructions on reliability of witness identification testimony. The trial judge did not give the exact instructions requested but gave substantially similar ones. Defense counsel, who expected not to be present during the giving of the instructions had previously made an objection if the requested instructions were not given. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error. We agree. The trial judge failed to instruct the jury that their verdict must be unanimous. The jury was instructed on the requirement of unanimity during their orientation. The record reveals that all jurors acknowledged that they agreed on the verdict. Defense counsel neither requested an instruction on unanimity nor objected to the trial judge's failure to give it. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error. We agree. Before the Court of Appeals defense counsel alleged a violation of defendants' right to due process and equal protection. Defendants were convicted of assault with intent to rob not armed, MCLA 750.88; MSA 28.283 which carries a 15-year maximum sentence, and sentenced to 2 to 15 years imprisonment. Defense counsel contends attempted robbery unarmed, MCLA 750.530; MSA 28.798 and MCLA 750.92; MSA 28.287 is an identical offense with a five-year maximum sentence. Therefore he alleges defendants' rights were violated because of the discretion given to the prosecutor to charge either offense when both are identical. The Court of Appeals found the statutes prohibited different offenses and therefore were not identical. We agree the statutes are not identical, but for reasons different from the Court of Appeals. Affirmed. I  THE FACTS Dwight Sanford and Reginald Lee Gardner were charged in a one-count information with the commission of the offense of assault with intent to rob being unarmed, MCLA 750.88; MSA 28.283. The complainant, Booker Anderson, testified that on February 26, 1974 at about 5:45 p.m. he went to the Sherman Drug Store near Owen and Oakland in the City of Detroit. When he returned to his car and was unlocking the door someone grabbed him. Two persons hit him on the side of the head and tried to throw him down. They tried to get into his pocket and said that there was money in the pocket. A third person came and grabbed him and he was dragged to an alley and the culprits kept saying there was money in the pocket. Then they broke and ran. The culprits got nothing. At trial Mr. Anderson identified defendants Gardner and Sanford as two of the men who attacked him. Mr. Anderson testified he had one false eye and his glasses were broken in the struggle. He also testified he had never seen the defendants before that day, but he had seen them in the drug store when he walked into the drug store. Mr. Anderson also testified on direct examination to having identified the defendants the day after the attack. Mr. Anderson saw the defendants in the same drug store and called the police. By the time the police arrived defendants were in a poolroom. The police joined Mr. Anderson at the poolroom. Mr. Anderson then pointed the defendants out to the police. The relevant portions of that testimony follow:  Q. (By Mr. Morgan [prosecuting attorney]): Okay. Now, the next day, Mr. Anderson, February 27, did you have occasion to go back to the drug store?
Mr. Ziemba [defense counsel]: Objection. This is entirely irrelevant, your Honor.  The Court: Overruled.  Mr. Ziemba: Thank you.  Q. (By Mr. Morgan): Would that be in the afternoon some time?  A. Yes. I went back to the drug store, and I saw them come in the drug store.  Q. Who came in the drug store?  A. Those two here.  Mr. Ziemba: May I have a continuing line of this question? [sic].  The Court: Yes.  Mr. Ziemba: Thank you.  Q. (By Mr. Morgan): You saw Mr. Gardner and Mr. Sanford?  A. That's right.  Q. Did they do anything in the drug store?  A. They got a pack of cigarettes, I think, and walked out.  Q. Okay. What did you do next, sir?  A. I called a policeman.  Q. Did some police officers come?  A. That's right.  Q. What did you do next?  A. When I called the police, they circled around up and down Owen and Oakland, and then went in the poolroom.