
    PEOPLE v GERARD PEOPLE v FRAZIER
    Criminal Law — Jurors—Police Officer’s Misconduct.
    Third person’s affidavit, some three months after defendants’ convictions of breaking and entering, that he heard the detective in charge of the investigation tell two prosecution witnesses and the complainant, in the presence of several jurors, that the witnesses would not be needed to testify further because the “ease was sewn up” and “looked pretty good for the prosecution”, did not constitute any ground for reversal, even assuming everything in the affidavit is true, because the matters discussed by the detective with the witnesses were totally collateral to the issues at trial.
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    47 Am Jur, Sheriffs, Police, and Constables § 37 et seq.
    
    Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Thomas L. Poindexter, J.
    Submitted Division 1 February 4, 1972, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 12312.)
    Decided March 29, 1972.
    Leave to appeal denied, 388 Mich 811.
    Joseph Gerard and Milton Frazier were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. Defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Thomas P. Smith, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      
      Norman L. Lippitt (by Alfred H. Varga), for defendants.
    Before: Bronson, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and O’Hara, JJ.
    
      
       Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals hy assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.
    
   Per Curiam.

Defendants were convicted in Detroit Recorder’s Court by a jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny, MCLA 750-.110; MSA 28.305. Defendants were sentenced to two years’ probation and fined $150. They filed a motion for new trial which was denied. From this decision, defendants appeal as a matter of right.

Some three months after the defendants’ convictions, one Ronald Boron, who is not otherwise identified, alleged that he had observed misconduct by Sergeant John Stroski, the detective in charge of this case. Ronald Boron executed an affidavit indicating that he heard Sergeant Stroski talking in the corridor outside the courtroom to a prosecution witness, his wife, and the owner of the gas station allegedly broken into by defendants. This alleged conversation, involving statements that the parties would not be needed to further testify because the “case was sewn up” and “looked pretty good for the prosecution”, supposedly took place in the presence of several jurors. Defendants’ motion for new trial was based upon this affidavit.

Assuming everything in the affidavit is true, there is no ground for reversal. The matters discussed were totally collateral to the issues at trial. No prejudice having been shown, defendants were not entitled to a new trial. People v Nick, 360 Mich 219 (1960); People v Schram, 378 Mich 145 (1966).

Affirmed.  