TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Maniez

People v. Maniez, 190 N.W.2d 682 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 24, 1971
Docket
No. 8176
Judges
Danhof, Fitzgerald, Quinn
Citations
190 N.W.2d 68234 Mich. App. 551971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1555
Cited by 5

Opinion — Per Curiam

*56 Per Curiam.

After a jury trial the defendant was convicted of robbery armed, MCLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 28.797). He appeals, contending that he was denied counsel at a pretrial lineup and that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing a res gestae witness to be indorsed after the trial had begun.

The trial court held that the eyewitnesses’ in-court identification of the defendant had an independent basis and had not been tainted by the pretrial confrontation. We agree.

Factors to be considered in determining whether the identification was tainted were stated in People v. Hutton (1970), 21 Mich App 312, 326 , as follows:

“And among the factors to be considered in applying this test are: the witness’ prior opportunity to ojbserve the alleged criminal act; the existence of any discrepancy between any pretrial description and the defendant’s actual appearance; any identification of another person before confrontation; photogenic identification before confrontation; failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion; and the lapse of time between the alleged act and the confrontation identification.”

In this case, the identifying witnesses have emphatically and consistently identified the defendant. There was no indication that they were prompted. When the crime was committed they were able to observe the defendant closely. The description they gave the police immediately after the crime fits the defendant. They were able to explain in detail why they were able to identify the defendant.

The trial court did not err in holding that the in-court identifications were proper.

*57 The res gestae witness issue is without merit. The defendant was in no way prejudiced and, therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the indorsement.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1972: 21974: 21975: 119722026peak 1972 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Edwards222 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974)
  2. People v. Hampton216 N.W.2d 441 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974)
  3. People v. Stratton235 N.W.2d 778 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
  4. People v. Harper204 N.W.2d 263 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)
  5. People v. Spaulding202 N.W.2d 450 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)

Most recent

  1. People v. Stratton235 N.W.2d 778 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
  2. People v. Edwards222 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974)
  3. People v. Hampton216 N.W.2d 441 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974)
  4. People v. Harper204 N.W.2d 263 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)
  5. People v. Spaulding202 N.W.2d 450 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Hutton, 175 N.W.2d 860 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970) 54

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list