City of Detroit v. Hodges
| Decision Date | 26 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 1720,1 |
| Citation | 164 N.W.2d 781,13 Mich.App. 531 |
| Parties | CITY OF DETROIT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mary June HODGES, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Sheldon M. Meizlish, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Robert Reese, Corp. Counsel, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GILLIS, P.J., and FITZGERALD and McGREGOR, JJ.
After a warrant for the arrest of one John Elliott Major was issued, charging him with the offenses of illegal sale and possession of narcotics, Major was found at apartment #308, 2852 John R., Detroit, on August 23, 1965. When police officers arrived, Major opened the door but quickly slammed it shut. The door was subsequently forced and, on entry, the officers observed six to nine people in an apartment consisting of a living room, bedroom and bath. All the people were charged with some offense. Defendant Mary June Hodges was charged with loitering, contrary to a provision of the Detroit Municipal Code (1964), § 28--8--8, as follows:
'No person shall Knowingly loiter about, frequent or live in any building, apartment, store, automobile, boat, boathouse, aeroplane or other place of any description whatsoever where narcotic drugs, hypodermic syringes, needles or other instruments or implements or empty gelatin capsules are sold, dispensed, furnished, given away, stored or kept illegally.' (Emphasis added.) Ch. 187, § 9, City (Detroit) Ordinances (1954).
At trial, an officer testified that he saw narcotics paraphenalia in every room. Among other witnesses, some convicted of loitering, one testified that he saw narcotics instruments in the bathroom, but no witnesses testified to seeing such instruments in the presence of this defendant. Mary June Hodges testified that she came to apartment#308 to recover hair rolls that she had loaned to the tenant, Carol White. She stated that she was in the living room about 5 to 7 minutes before the police came and did not know there were narcotic implements or paraphernalia in the apartment. Defendant waived trial by jury and was convicted in the recorder's court. Defendant contends that it is necessary to give the word 'loitering' a strained and unusual meaning in order to find that she did in fact violate the ordinance. None of the narcotic paraphernalia was introduced in evidence.
The trial court concluded that the requisite element of knowledge (knowingly loitering where narcotic drugs, hypodermic syringes, etc. * * * are stored or kept illegally) could be inferred. When defense counsel indicated that there was no evidence that the defendant 'knowingly' had any knowledge of the illegal presence of the narcotics or paraphernalia, the trial court said:
When defense counsel noted defendant's uncontradicted testimony that she had come to the apartment to get her curlers, the court replied, 'I don't believe her * * *'
Defendant seeks a reversal on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction.
To sustain a conviction, there must be evidence to show (1) loitering, (2) in a place where narcotic drugs or narcotic paraphernalia are illegally sold, dispensed, furnished, given away, or stored, and (3) that the defendant, when loitering in such place, knew that the narcotic paraphernalia were illegally stored or kept there. There must be evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of each element of the offense. The word 'loiter' has no sinister meaning and, by itself, implies no wrongdoing or misconduct or engagement in prohibited practices. City of Seattle v. Drew (1967), 70 Wash.2d 405, 423 P.2d 522, 524; Cates...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hunter
...It must be shown that the person loitered in a place knowing illegal narcotic paraphernalia was kept or sold there. Detroit v. Hodges, 13 Mich.App. 531, 164 N.W.2d 781 (1968). The Court in Hodges noted the "To sustain a conviction, there must be evidence to show (1) loitering, (2) in a plac......
-
People v. Robinson
...as to make criminal an innocent act, City of Detroit v. Bowden, Supra, 6 Mich.App. at 520, 149 N.W.2d 771; City of Detroit v. Hodges (1968), 13 Mich.App. 531, 534, 164 N.W.2d 781; Winters v. New York (1948), 333 U.S. 507, 520, 68 S.Ct. 665, 92 L.Ed. 840. However, as was stated before, perfe......
-
People v. Smith
...dilatory, standing idly, lingering or delaying. People v. Morris, 66 Mich.App. 514, 239 N.W.2d 649 (1976). In Detroit v. Hodges, 13 Mich.App. 531, 534, 164 N.W.2d 781, 782 (1968), the Court "The word 'loiter' has no sinister meaning and, by itself, implies no wrongdoing or misconduct or eng......
-
People v. Morris
...when loitering in such place, knew that the narcotic paraphernalia were illegally stored or kept there.' Detroit v. Hodges, 13 Mich.App. 531, 534, 164 N.W.2d 781, 782 (1968). Probable cause as to the latter two elements is supplied by the fact that defendant was standing next to the table o......