Brown v. People
| Decision Date | 11 June 1878 |
| Citation | 39 Mich. 37 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Joseph S. Brown v. The People |
Submitted June 6, 1878
Error to Cass.
Larceny and Receiving stolen property.
Judgment affirmed.
Howell & Carr for plaintiff in error. An information should not be filed except on a definite finding, Yaner v. People, 34 Mich. 286.
Attorney General Otto Kirchner for the People.
The respondent was tried upon an information charging him with having committed larceny, and also for having received stolen goods, and convicted of the first offense charged. When arraigned and before pleading he moved to quash the information for the reason that the return and certificate of the examining magistrate did not determine that any offense named in the information was committed nor that the justice found probable cause for suspecting the respondent to be guilty thereof. This motion was denied, and the errors now assigned are the same as those stated in this motion and for denying the same. The complaint made before the examining magistrate and the warrant issued by him contained charges the same as set forth in the information. There was an examination and the magistrate certified that it appeared to him that the said offense so charged was committed and that there was probable cause to believe the respondent to have been guilty of the commission thereof.
This we are of opinion, was sufficient and would authorize the prosecuting attorney to file an information charging the respondent with a larceny of the property.
Our statute permits and authorizes the adding a count, in an information for larceny, charging a receiving of the same property knowing it to have been stolen. This is not designed as a separate and distinct offense but to meet the evidence adduced on the trial and prevent a failure of justice in a case where it should be made to appear that the respondent was not the principal actor in the felonious taking but in receiving the stolen property with a knowledge of the fact. I do not understand that an examination upon a complaint charging a receiving of stolen property is necessary before the prosecuting attorney can add such a count to an information charging larceny. If there has been an examination before a magistrate on a complaint and warrant charging a larceny of goods, and the accused is held for trial, the prosecuting officer may, in his information in such a case, add a count...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McGreevey
...offense, as it is declared by the facts appearing upon preliminary examination." (People v. Karste, 132 Mich. 455, 93 N.W. 1081; Brown v. People, 39 Mich. 37; Alderman v. State, 24 Neb. 97, 38 N.W. 36; v. Jarrett, 46 Kan. 754, 27 P. 146; State v. Reedy, 44 Kan. 190, 24 P. 66; Redmond v. Sta......
-
Fertig v. State
...This latter rule is adhered to by the following courts: State v. Boulter, 5 Wyo. 236, 39 P. 883; Yaner v. People, 34 Mich. 286; Brown v. People, 39 Mich. 37; People v. Evans, 72 Mich. 367, 40 N.W. People v. Bechtel, 80 Mich. 623, 45 N.W. 582; People v. Pichette, 111 Mich. 461, 69 N.W. 739; ......
-
People v. Newby, Docket No. 77-1161
...efficient services to a felon, in aiding him in the concealment of stolen property." (Emphasis added.) 2 Mich. at 423-424. In Brown v. People, 39 Mich. 37 (1878), the Court permitted adding a count of receiving and concealing stolen property to a charge of larceny not as a distinct offense,......
-
State v. Boulter
...magistrate, but is bound to confine his prosecution to the same charge in substance designated by the committing magistrate. See Brown v. People, 39 Mich. 37. Statutes such as those of California and Michigan evidently not intended to prevent an effective prosecution of criminals in the dis......