People v. Kyllonen

• Decision Date: 07 January 1976
• Docket Number: Docket No. 21679
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David KYLLONEN, Defendant-Appellant. 66 Mich.App. 467, 239 N.W.2d 410
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 410

239 N.W.2d 410

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David KYLLONEN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 21679.

66 Mich.App. 467, 239 N.W.2d 410

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Jan. 7, 1976.

Released for Publication March 23, 1976.

[66 MICHAPP 468] James R. Neuhard, State App. Defender, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., F. D. Brouillette, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before DANHOF, P.J., and QUINN and D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr., JJ.

DANHOF, Presiding Judge.

On June 11, 1974, David Kyllonen was found guilty by a jury of receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property. M.C.L.A. § 750.535; M.S.A. § 28.803. The defendant was sentenced to a term of a minimum of two years to a maximum of five years in prison on June 26, 1974.

At the trial, the service manager for a Lansing automobile sales business testified that a new 1974 Toyota pickup truck was noticed as missing on January 28, 1974. The vehicle was thereafter reported to the police department as stolen. An undersheriff for Iron County testified that the pickup truck, identified by its serial number, was found by the sheriff's department at a farm in Iron River Township. The defendant was arrested and taken to the county jail on February 12, 1974. While at the jail, the undersheriff stated the defendant[66 MICHAPP 469] gave a written confession, which was signed by the defendant and witnessed by others present on February 14, 1974.

During the trial, the court held a Walker hearing ¹ to determine the voluntariness of the defendant's confession. After determining the statement was knowingly and voluntarily made by the defendant, it was received in evidence.

The confession indicated the defendant had driven the vehicle away from the Lansing business, where he had worked as a maintenance man. He stated that he had driven the truck to the farm on February 5, 1974. He left it parked there until it was eventually recovered by the police. According to the defendant, there were other men at the farm who knew the vehicle was stolen and who had driven it. Further, one of the other men was in the process of stripping the vehicle to sell the parts.

Another witness at the trial identified the defendant as the man he saw drive the truck into his service station at Iron River in February.

At the close of the prosecutor's proofs, the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict on the grounds that the prosecution had not proven all the elements of the crime charged. The motion was denied.

The first issue is whether the defendant, who confessed to taking the vehicle, may be convicted under the statute for receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property.

M.C.L.A. § 750.535; M.S.A. § 28.803 reads in relevant part:

'A person who buys, receives, or aids in the concealment[66 MICHAPP 470] of any stolen, embezzled, or converted money, goods, or property knowing the same to have been stolen, embezzled, or converted, if the property purchased, received, or concealed exceeds the value of $100.00, is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both.'

The court in People v. Allen, 252 Mich. 553, 554, 233 N.W. 412, 413 (1930) stated:

Under our statute (Act No. 175, Pub. Acts 1927, c. 7, § 69) (M.C.L.A. § 767.69; M.S.A. § 28.1009), a count for receiving the stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, may be added where larceny is charged, and the jury may find the accused person guilty of either of these offenses. They are, however, distinct offenses, and a conviction on one count works an acquittal on the other. The same person may not be the thief who stole the property and the person who received it from the thief, knowing it to have been stolen.'

While it appears that a defendant convicted of larceny may not be convicted for receiving or aiding in the concealment of the stolen goods and vice versa, he may be prosecuted for both offenses. Thus, a defendant alleged to be the thief, but not convicted for his thievery, may be convicted under the statute for receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property. M.C.L.A. § 750.535; M.S.A. § 28.803. See also People v. Randall, 42 Mich.App. 187, 193, 201 N.W.2d 292 (1972), and People v. Simon, 23 Mich.App. 64, 178 N.W.2d 106 (1970).

The next issue raised is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a directed verdict.

In reviewing the trial court's denial of a directed verdict on the same offense charged in the present [66 MICHAPP 471] case, the court in People v. Keshishian, 45 Mich.App. 51, 53, 205 N.W.2d 818, 819 (1973), stated:

'The only meritorious issue is whether defendant's motion for directed verdict made at the close of the prosecution's proofs should have been granted.

'The elements of this offense are as follows: (1) the property was stolen, (2) the receiving of the property by the defendant, (3) the identify of the goods as those previously stolen, (4) the value of the property, and (5) the guilty knowledge of the defendant. People v. Tantenella, 212 Mich. 614, 180 N.W. 474 (1920), People v. Martinovich, 18 Mich.App. 253, 170 N.W.2d 899 (1969).

'The question to be decided on a motion for directed verdict of not guilty is whether there is evidence from which the jury can reasonably infer all the elements of the crime charged. People v. Compton, 23 Mich.App. 42, 178 N.W.2d 133 (1970).'

Item (2) would also include aiding in the concealment of stolen property by the defendant as an element of the offense.

In the instant case, the defendant argued to the trial court that the prosecution failed to prove items (2) and (5) above. An examination of the record indicates that the jury could have found the defendant had knowledge that the truck was stolen based upon his confession. Further, both from the confession and the witnesses called by the prosecution, the jury could have believed the defendant took the truck from Lansing to a farm in Iron River Township to conceal it from the police. The confession also indicates there were others at the farm, who knew the vehicle was stolen, and one of the others was in the...