Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v DONTE SHONTEL PRYOR, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED May 21, 1999

No. 208976 Jackson Circuit Court LC No. 97-081127

Before: Markman, P.J., and Hoekstra and Zahra, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant was charged with assault with intent to commit murder, MCL 750.83; MSA 28.278, carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). His first trial ended in a mistrial. Upon retrial, a jury convicted defendant on all charges and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five to fifty years' imprisonment. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm. At defendant's first trial, during jury selection, the prosecutor informed the court and defense counsel, in a bench conference, that witness, Christopher Crance, a Jackson City Police Officer, would not be available to testify because, despite being under subpoena, the witness had gone on vacation. Officer Crance was listed on the prosecution's witness list. The court told the parties that the issue would be discussed after the completion of jury selection. After the jury was impaneled and sworn, the issue was revisited. At that time, in response to the court's inquiry, the prosecutor indicated that Crance was one of the initial officers at the scene and that he was the first to interview the complainant. The prosecutor also stated that while Crance had been subpoenaed, the prosecution did not plan on calling him and would be unable to produce him for trial. Counsel for co-defendant then indicated that he had "difficulty" with Crance's unavailability because he was "a necessary party [sic] in this matter." Counsel for defendant promptly concurred in this position. Immediately thereafter, the trial court responded that it had no alternative but to declare a mistrial. Three weeks later, defendant was retried before a new jury and convicted.

-1

Defendant argues that his retrial violated his double jeopardy rights. We disagree. Because this issue presents a question of constitutional law, our review is de novo. People v White, 212 Mich App 298, 304-305; 536 NW2d 876 (1995). Both the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution prohibit placing a defendant twice in jeopardy for a single offense, which protects a defendant against both successive prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense. US Const, Am V; Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V DONTE SHONTEL PRYOR.pdf

Michigan Law