TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Mattice

People v. Mattice, 196 N.W.2d 345 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 22, 1972
Docket
No. 9413
Judges
Lesinski, McGregor, Quinn
Citations
196 N.W.2d 34538 Mich. App. 3331972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1653

Opinion — Quinn

Quinn, J.

A jury convicted defendant of breaking and entering an occupied dwelling with intent to commit larceny, MCLA 750.110; MSA 28.305. He was sentenced and he appeals.

After claim of appeal was filed but before defendant’s brief was filed, his appointed appellate counsel was relieved of the assignment at the request of defendant. The trial court declined defendant’s request for new appellate counsel, and defendant’s brief was filed in propria persona.

Our review of the record convinces us that the three issues raised by defendant are so unsubstantial that discussion of them is not required. Review does disclose two errors committed by the prosecuting attorney at trial, which would have been apparent to adequate appellate counsel but not to defendant. Both of the errors are reversible errors under prior decisions of this Court and both relate to the question of fair trial, and one relates to a violation of a constitutional right of the defendant. Because of this and the possible infringement of defendant’s right to appellate counsel, we depart normal procedure and consider issues not raised on appeal.

*335 During the presentation of the people’s case, the prosecuting attorney twice asked the deputy sheriff who investigated the case and arrested defendant, if the latter made any statement when arrested. The deputy sheriff responded in the negative to each question. During final argument, the prosecuting attorney stated:

“The officer, Eobert Swackhamer, testified that Lester was involved in this and was arrested and properly warned and made no statement.”

Defendant’s constitutional right to remain silent was violated, People v Gisondi, 9 Mich App 289 (1967).

During cross-examination of defendant, the prosecuting attorney twice asked defendant about prior arrests, not arrests and convictions. The latter inquiry is proper; the former is not, People v Brocato, 17 Mich App 277, 302 (1969).

Eeversed and remanded for a new trial.

All concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1972: 21973: 219722026peak 1972 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Beamon213 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973)
  2. People v. Sanders204 N.W.2d 706 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)
  3. People v. Urban206 N.W.2d 511 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973)
  4. People v. Shegog205 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)

Most recent

  1. People v. Beamon213 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973)
  2. People v. Urban206 N.W.2d 511 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973)
  3. People v. Shegog205 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)
  4. People v. Sanders204 N.W.2d 706 (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 2

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Brocato, 169 N.W.2d 483 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969) 171
People v. Gisondi, 156 N.W.2d 601 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967) 13

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