Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

03/23/76 PEOPLE v. BRINSON

March 23, 1976

PEOPLE
v.
BRINSON



Appeal from Genesee, Harry B. McAra, J.

Bronson, P. J., and McGregor and R. M. Maher, JJ.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. Constitutional Law -- Federal and State Prosecutions -- Double Jeopardy -- Same Acts.

A person may be liable to punishment for infraction of law of the United States and of a state for the same act.

2. Constitutional Law -- Double Jeopardy -- Mistrial -- Manifest Necessity -- Consent of Defendant.

A second trial of a defendant for the same crime after a mistrial is declared is not violative of the double jeopardy prohibitions where (1) manifest necessity requires the mistrial, or (2) the defendant consents to the mistrial.

3. -- Double Jeopardy -- Manifest Necessity -- Absence of Defendant -- Waiver.

A defendant's voluntary absence from the courtroom after his trial has begun does not create a manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial since by such absence he is deemed to have waived his right to be present and the trial may proceed to a Conclusion without him.

4. Constitutional Law -- Essential Rights -- Waiver by Counsel -- Double Jeopardy Bar -- Consent to Mistrial.

Waiver by defense counsel of his client's right to not be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense, by consenting to a mistrial when defendant voluntarily absented himself from the trial, is not one of the essential rights which cannot be waived by an attorney for his client.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mcgregor

John Brinson was convicted of conspiring to obtain money by false pretenses and of obtaining money by false pretenses. Defendant appeals.

Defendant, John Brinson, was found guilty by the trial court, sitting without a jury, of conspiring to obtain money by false pretenses (MCLA 750.157a; MSA 28.354[1]) and of obtaining money by false pretenses (MCLA 750.218; MSA 28.415). He appeals, in propria persona, as a matter of right.

Defendant raises nine issues for our consideration. However, only one is of sufficient merit to warrant Discussion. The defendant claims that on two separate occasions his constitutional ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.