Court Opinion

ID: 9849346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:38:42.324131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:18.818087
License: Public Domain

Holbrook, J.
(dissenting). As my brother judges stated in their opinion, “the defendant’s motion to suppress from evidence the .22-caliber pistol allegedly used in the crimes was granted by the trial court on the basis that the weapon was obtained by an unlawful search and seizure.” The. assistant prosecuting attorney in presenting the people’s case used the suppressed gun for demonstration purposes. Its similarity in type and operation was demonstrated to the jury by questions put to witnesses. Although the suppressed gun was purportedly used for demonstration purposes, a reference to the testimony of Mr. Thomas Censke from whose home the defendant obtained the weapon discloses the following:
(Questioning by the assistant prosecuting attorney)
“Q. Did you have occasion to see the defendant here, do you recall, prior to January 19th?
“A. That weekend, yeah. * * #
“Q. She came out to your home?
“A. Yes, sir. * * *
*531“Q. Now, did you have a .22-caliber pistol, automatic pistol in your home?
“A. It was there, yes, sir.
“Q. When was the first time that — well, did it ever disappear?
“A. Well, the first time I knew it ivas gone was after I got home and heard this on TV and I checked to see—
“Q. Was that January 19th?
“A. I believe it was.
“Q. Did you check your home at that time?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Did you find the pistol?
“A. No, sir, it was gone. * * *
“Q. The gun wasn’t yours, I see. Now I am going to show you what is a .22-caliber automatic. Is that the type of gun it was?
“A. Yes, sir.

“Q. It is a rather large .22, isn’t it? Is it not?

“A. Yeah.
“Q. Now, do you have any idea how this gun got out of your house?
“A. Well, I guess what I told the Portage police, as near as I can figure, just Judie must just have run on to it and just up and took it.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The reference in questioning by the assistant prosecuting attorney to “this gun” may very well have been a reference to the suppressed gun used by the defendant in the crimes. What the jury-understood from the questioning, no one knows.
When the suppressed gun was first used by the assistant prosecuting attorney, defense counsel objected on the ground that it was not material. The objection was overruled and the suppressed gun was used by the assistant prosecuting attorney in questioning other witnesses until a time when it was discovered by defense counsel that the gun was in fact the suppressed gun. At that time it was or*532dered removed from the courtroom by the trial judge.
It has been ruled in Michigan that evidence exhibited to the jury but not offered or introduced is to all intents and purposes considered as evidence. People v. Rozewicz (1924), 228 Mich 231. Also, see 46 ALR2d 1423. Conversely, in the instant case it cannot be said that the use of the suppressed gun for demonstration purposes was not prejudicial because it was subject to being admitted.
The question arises- — can the people use suppressed evidence for demonstration purposes? The word “suppress” means to effectively prevent from using, and officials who have possession of illegally obtained evidence are prohibited from using such evidence. Rodgers v. United States (DC Cal, 1958), 158 F Supp 670, 680. This statement of law is not only logical but required in view of the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 US 643 (81 S Ct 1684, 6 L Ed 2d 1081, 84 ALR2d 933). In order to effect due process the suppressed gun in the instant case could not be used for any evidential purpose.
The prevailing opinion approves a procedure that would permit the use of suppressed evidence in court, inadmissible by direct offer, thus allowing entry through the back door that which has been refused entry through the front door.
This writer is constrained to vote for reversal and remand for new trial.