Court Opinion

ID: 9705962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:27:58.748799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:27.486122
License: Public Domain

D. E. Holbrook, P. J.
(dissenting). This writer is constrained to respectfully disagree with the result required by the majority in their opinion. It appears to this writer that defendant-appellant received a fair trial and that no prejudice resulted to him in being tried with codefendant Henderson. Defendant-appellant Webb had been a guest of Henderson in his apartment for several weeks before the two murders, which are the subject of this criminal proceeding, occurred. Both men had girl friends living with them in the apartment. Webb’s girl friend left the apartment on March 8, 1975, two days before the murders. There was testimony (not Henderson’s) in the case to indicate that Webb thought Big Jim was hiding her. Big Jim was one of the victims of the murder. Big Jim and the other victim were in Big Jim’s apartment on the first floor where the murders occurred and Henderson’s apartment was on the third floor of the same apartment building.
On the morning of the offense, March 10, 1975, Webb and Henderson went downtown to get Webb’s two welfare checks. After obtaining the checks, Webb cashed one check and purchased a shotgun for $48 at a pawnshop. Then both men had a drink at a bar and visited a friend of Webb. It is unclear where they obtained the shells for the shotgun, but evidently they had them for when they arrived at the apartment Webb had the shotgun and Henderson had a sack of shells. Previous to returning to the apartment Webb purchased a *189bottle of gin or vodka, took it with him to Henderson’s apartment and drank it with Patricia Young, a friend who came over from another apartment in the same building. Neither Henderson nor his girl friend drank any of it. There was no dispute of the fact that the gun was at the apartment and that Webb had it. Webb testified that he bought the gun for his father. He further testified that about 1:30 in the afternoon of the day in question, he left the apartment and went to his mother’s home quite a distance away — that at the time he arrived at his mother’s, the police were there and so he stopped at a friend’s home nearby and stayed there until the police left. That night he tried to return to Henderson’s apartment to get the check that he had not cashed and had left there. A friend of his drove him over to the apartment and when they arrived someone shot at the passenger side where Webb was sitting, they then left and did not return. Webb’s defense was simple — he was not there, he did not do it, he did not know anything at all about the shootings. The shootings took place about 2:30 p.m., about an hour after Webb said he left the apartment. Webb further testified he sold the shotgun for $50 to a man whose name he doesn’t know. He did not describe him and did not know where he lived or anything else about him. He met him in a bar.
Henderson testified and verified Webb’s account with a few variations concerning the activities of the two of them that day up until 1:30 p.m. Henderson, however, corroborated other witnesses’ testimony to the effect that Webb was there before and just after the shootings. Henderson did not place Webb in the apartment where the shootings occurred, nor did he witness the shootings. One of the witnesses testified she heard Webb say he was going to shoot Big Jim (one of the victims). There *190was considerable evidence that tended to show that Webb was present in the apartment building at the time of the shootings. Webb’s counsel cross-examined Henderson as well as all the res gestae witnesses. The jury was able to treat fairly defendant Webb concerning all the facts of the case brought out in the testimony and properly presented before the jury. All of defendant Webb’s claims and theories were fully explored and explained by his attorney.
It is true that the trial judge only had the motion phrased in conclusory language and did not have all these facts before him when he denied the motion of defendant Webb to sever his trial.
The motion of defendant Webb is as follows:
"Now comes the above named defendant by M. Arthur Arduin his Attorney and moves this Honorable Court to sever this defendant’s case for the following reasons:
"1. That the defendant is charged with the offense of 2 - first degree murders.
"2. That the other defendant in this case is one Johnny Lee Henderson.
"3. That the interests of this defendant are directly opposite to those of his co-defendant, and that although his co-defendant is charged with the killing of the two persons named in the information, this co-defendant, Johnny Lee Henderson is trying to put the blame on this defendant although defendant says he is innocent of this charge.
"4. That such a conflict of interests rrequirs [sic] that this defendant be tried separately, so that he can obtain a fair trial.
"5. That is [sic] he is forced to go to trial with this co-defendant, the jury might come to a conclusion that this co-defendant is guilty, then this defentant [sic] could also be inferred to be guilty, which guilt could be inferred by defendant’s mere presencee [sic]” (Emphasis supplied.)
*191This motion was conclusory in nature and not in accord with the facts as presented to the jury. Defendant Webb should have spelled out in an affidavit the conflict, if any, between him and defendant Henderson. This he did not do.
Also, in connection with the motion to sever the trial of defendant Webb, we note with interest that his attorney filed a motion to endorse additional res gestae witnesses — those who were not listed on the information but who Webb claimed were res gestae witnesses. Webb desired these witnesses to appear and testify and the motion to endorse the res gestae witnesses was granted by the trial court and the witnesses were subpoenaed to testify.
The opinion of the majority bases their reversal and grant of a new trial on the fact that the trial court improperly denied the motion to sever. People v Hurst, 396 Mich 1; 238 NW2d 6 (1976).
The basis for this writer’s dissent is based on the ruling of a similar case in our Court. In People v Smith, 73 Mich App 463, 468-469; 252 NW2d 488 (1977), the Court in part stated:
"The decision whether to hold joint or separate trials is discretionary with the trial court. MCLA 768.5; MSA 28.1028. People v Hurst, 396 Mich 1, 11; 238 NW2d 6 (1976). In moving the court for separate trial, defendant must 'show that his substantial rights will be prejudiced by a joint trial’. People v Scott, 61 Mich App 91, 94; 232 NW2d 315 (1975). See People v Schram, 378 Mich 145, 156; 142 NW2d 662 (1966). A supporting affidavit defining the inconsistencies between the defenses of the parties is required before an abuse of discretion will be found. People v Mullane, 256 Mich 54, 56; 239 NW 282 (1931).
"No affidavits were attached to defendants’ motions. Nor did the statements contained in defendants’ motions adequately assert 'the full scope of the antagonism *192between his and his co-defendant’s defenses’. People v Markham, 19 Mich App 616, 635; 173 NW2d 307 (1969). The only substantial claim made by defendants Gilmore and Smith is that they could not call their co-defendants to testify in a joint trial; and this claim is largely vitiated by decisions indicating that co-defendants, even if tried separately, cannot be compelled to testify against their will. People v Merritt, 396 Mich 67, 84, n 18; 238 NW2d 31 (1976); People v Van Alstine, 57 Mich 69, 82; 23 NW 594 (1885). In the same vein, authority exists to answer defendant Holloway’s allegation that he was denied his right of confrontation in a joint trial where he was not allowed to cross-examine his co-defendants. State v Moore, 101 NW2d 579, 587 (ND, 1960). We find no abuse in the trial court’s denial of the respective motions.” (Footnote omitted.) (Emphasis supplied.)
As in People v Smith, supra, no affidavits were attached to the motion of defendant Webb for severance. Defendant’s motion to sever is a conclusory statement without facts, and claimed that codefendant Henderson might blame appellant for the murders. Codefendant Henderson did testify as to details of both his and appellant’s activities before and after the murders. Henderson did not see appellant murder anyone, did not see Webb in Big Jim’s apartment that day, also appellant had thorough cross-examination of his codefendant Henderson. Defendant-appellant was not required to present a defense before an antagonistic stranger, rather defendant had cross-examination of a codefendant well known to him. In fact, defendant and codefendant occupied the same apartment. Defendant Webb cross-examined Henderson right along with all other res gestae witnesses, and they all provided some circumstantial evidence of both appellant’s and his codefendant’s guilt.
Defendant-appellant did not properly claim any *193substantial right as grounds for the motion for severance, nor has appellant shown prejudice to any substantial right.
It appears to this writer that defendant-appellant was desirous of having all the res gestae presented before the jury. He made a motion to this effect, which was granted. It may be that he thought he would have a better chance at acquit- ' tal if all the res gestae were presented. In this regard this writer would agree. At least all the facts would be presented to the jury.
Now it is true that the trial judge stated in refusing the motion to sever as follows:
"That’s a luxury that’s pretty hard to afford in this court, as busy as we are.”
This writer admits that that reason was not good. However, the trial judge also stated in refusing the motion to sever as follows:
"I think it would be to his advantage to have it tried, if that’s the case, in front of a Jury that can hear everything at once. If there are two separate Juries who can’t see one man and can only see the one man that’s in front of them and not the other, then they’ve got a chance to observe both.
"I think it would be a fairer trial this way than it would be.
"For the reason you gave, I’ll deny your motion.”
A trial judge’s ruling calling for a correct result will not be reversed even though premised upon a wrong reason. Williams v The Detroit Edison Co, 63 Mich App 559; 234 NW2d 702 (1975), Przbylinski v Standard Pressed Steel Co, 62 Mich App 461; 233 NW2d 614 (1975).
*194In accord with People v Smith, supra, and for the reasons herein stated whereby it is shown that defendant Webb had a fair trial with all the res gestae witnesses presented to the jury and no prejudice resulting to him, this writer would rule that the trial judge’s denial of the motion to sever was proper.
The defendant has raised other issues and claims of error in this appeal which do not merit discussion or decision.
This writer votes to affirm the conviction.