Court Opinion

ID: 9728779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:16:18.505093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:52.025477
License: Public Domain

J. H. Gillis, P.J.
(dissenting). As pointed out by the majority, on appeal defendant contends, inter alia, that the trial court erred in ruling that the testimony of the missing witness was cumulative.
During his first appeal to this Court, defendant argued that the testimony of the missing witness was important to his defense for two reasons. First, the missing witness might have been able to *435testify about how the marijuana came to be in defendant’s house trailer since he had visited the trailer on the day previous to the police raid. Also, during the raid some marijuana was found in the missing witness’s automobile. Second, the missing witness could have been the secret police informant who had provided the police with information concerning the marijuana found in defendant’s trailer. Defendant had indicated a desire to put forth an entrapment defense if the police informant could be located.
This Court recognized the materiality of defendant’s arguments and stated:
"If the witness is produced, and, after hearing his testimony, the court is at that time convinced that it is merely cumulative, then defendant Jerry Johnson’s conviction will be affirmed. If the witness is produced, and, after hearing his testimony, the court is convinced that it contains new evidence of a material nature, then a new trial is ordered as to defendant Jerry Johnson.” People v Jerry Johnson, 68 Mich App 697, 702-703; 243 NW2d 715 (1976).
The circuit court’s opinion, which concluded that the missing witness’s testimony was cumulative, summarized the witness’s testimony as follows:
"That on January 31, 1974, he was in defendant’s home at the time the officers arrived and also present were the defendant, defendant’s wife, Dawn Johnson, Marty Warner and Warner’s wife, Mary Sue Warner; that witness had gone there on business; that he did not recall what the officers said while he was present; that the officers came in, went from room to room and found some 'pot’ — he doesn’t know where they found it; that the officers placed this substance on the counter and at the time it was in plastic bags; that he had been in defendant’s home for one-half to one hour before the officers arrived; that the defendant was a friend of *436witness and that witness went to defendant’s home every day; that the witness owned no part of the marijuana which was seized by the officers nor did he go with the defendant when he acquired it; that he was in defendant’s house on Sunday night before the raid and saw no bag of 'pot’ at that time; that he did not inform the police of the presence of marijuana in defendant’s house. Witness at one point exercised his 5th Amendment right when he was questioned by defense counsel as to his possible involvement in drug related activities.”
A careful review of the record supports the trial court’s determination. The missing witness’s testimony offered no further enlightenment as to the transaction in question other than the testimony originally presented at defendant’s trial. People v Keefe, 69 Mich App 431; 245 NW2d 78 (1976), People v Saunders, 68 Mich App 546; 243 NW2d 679 (1976).
It should also be noted that there is no indication whatsoever that the missing witness had any connection with the investigation which resulted in defendant’s arrest. The missing witness’s use of the Fifth Amendment in response to defense counsel’s questions suggests that he may well have been an accomplice. Additionally, in light of the witness’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights, it would be improper for the prosecution or defense to call him to testify at any subsequent trial. People v Giacalone, 399 Mich 642; 250 NW2d 492 (1977).
The other issues raised by defendant do not warrant a discussion by this Court and do not, in my opinion, constitute reversible error.
I would affirm the conviction.