People v. De Bolt, 132.
| Decision Date | 01 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 132.,132. |
| Citation | 269 Mich. 39,256 N.W. 615 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. DE BOLT. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Joseph County; Theo T. Jacobs, Judge.
Harold De Bolt was convicted of robbery while armed, and he appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Raymond H. Dresser and Roy H. Hagerman, both of Sturgis, for appellant.
Patrick H. O'Brien, Atty. Gen., and Geo. H. Arnold, Pros. Atty., of Three Rivers, for the People.
The information filed herein charged the defendant, Harold De Bolt, and Vincent Minneci, Joseph McDonald, and Henry Gerber with the robbery, while armed, of the First National Bank of Burr Oak on the 15th day of January, 1934. At the request of defendant he was granted a separate trial.
The evidence submitted clearly establishes the fact that the three defendants, other than De Bolt, entered the bank soon after 9 o'clock in the morning of the day above stated, and, with deadly weapons, held up the cashier and a number of others then present and stole therefrom about $600 in money. While De Bolt was not then present, it is the claim of the prosecution that he had joined with the others in planning the robbery and was an accomplice in the commission of the crime. He was convicted and sentenced to prison for a term not exceeding 25 years and not less than 10 years, and has appealed therefrom.
There is little dispute in the facts. De Bolt did not take the stand as a witness. The court very properly instructed the jury that no inference of guilt could be drawn from his failure to do so.
The evidence discloses that De Bolt, hereafter spoken of as the defendant, whose home was in the city of Sturgis, rented a cottage, with little furniture in it, near a lake about 13 miles from Burr Oak, on December 22 or 23, 1933, for 30 days; that while visiting in Chicago he invited the other defendants to be his guests at the cottage, and they came there with him on January 5, 1934; that he entertained them while there; took them to some public places, ate some meals at restaurants, and went to some billiard halls; that he was driving around with a friend on the night of the 14th and about 4:30 in the morning of the 15th came to the cottage and remained there until the other defendants left about 9 o'clock; that he stated that he felt ‘nervous'; that he ‘had a hunch when they left the cottage something was going to happen’; that the other defendants left in a Chrysler car, which had been stolen in the city of Kalamazoo the evening before, and driven by a man who has not been identified and who was seen driving towards Burr Oak and later returning therefrom; that soon after the robbery was committed notice thereof was sent out by radio and the members of the state police met the defendant driving his own car at some distance from the cottage and arrested him. One of them took the defendant to the post at White Pigeon. The others drove to the cottage where the other three defendants were found, and, after an effort to escape on their part, they were also placed under arrest. Three pistols and a sawed-off shotgun were found in the cottage.
Later on the same day Philip L. Hutson, a detective with the state police, testified that he had a talk with defendant in which he denied that he had had anything to do with the commission of the crime. A little later, the defendant Minneci, who was also in custody, was questioned by Hutson, in the presence of defendant.
‘I asked Minneci how long he had known De Bolt, he said, ‘I had known him six days,’ asked him where he met him, he says, ‘I met him in Chicago,’ I asked him how he happened to meet him, he says, ‘I met him through Gerber,’ I asked him when he had first heard of the Burr Oak bank, he says, ‘When I first met him in Chicago,’ I asked him ‘Who cased the bank.’
‘The Court: Who what? A. Who cased the bank.
The Court: What do you mean by that term? A. It means the planning of the robbery. * * *
‘And he said, ‘Who do you think cased it,’ and I said, ‘It is not up to—it is not for me to think, I want you to tell me who cased the bank,’ and he said ‘He did,’ don't know anything about this country up here. * * *
‘The Court: What do you mean by
That he then asked the defendant ‘if he had anything to say about it,’ and he answered, ‘No, I have not got anything more to say.’ Hutson was later asked, ‘Then Mr. De Bolt didn't consent to any such story, did he that Minneci told?’ and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Turner
-
People v. Brown, Docket No. 55779
...of the principal is no longer necessary to convict the accessory, the guilt of a principal must still be shown, People v. DeBolt, 269 Mich. 39, 45, 256 N.W. 615 (1934); People v. Williams # 1, 45 Mich.App. 623, 628-629, 207 N.W.2d 176 (1973), defendant asserts that the acquittal of Wideman ......
-
Refrigeration Discount Corp. v. Catino
...of what Catino had said. Whitney v. Houghton, 127 Mass. 527, 529-530; Fitzgerald v. Williams, 148 Mass. 462, 20 N.E. 100; People v. DeBolt, 269 Mich. 39, 256 N.W. 615; People v. Countryman, 201 App.Div. 805, 195 N.Y.S. 728; Jasmin v. Parker, 102 Vt. 405, 148 A. It follows that the judge was......
-
People v. Hayes
...is admissible only when the circumstances call for a denial, where there is no justification for failing to respond. People v. DeBolt, 269 Mich. 39, 256 N.W. 615 (1934), People v. Barnes, (On Remand), 44 Mich.App. 488, 205 N.W.2d 591 (1973) Lv. den. 389 Mich. 795 (1973). We find, in the ins......