Ex parte Molisak
| Decision Date | 09 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 129.,129. |
| Citation | 288 N.W. 329,291 Mich. 46 |
| Parties | Ex parte MOLISAK. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding in the matter of the petition of John Molisak for a writ of habeas corpus. From an order refusing to discharge petitioner from custody, petitioner appeals in the nature of certiorari.
Order affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Vincent M. Brennan, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Harry J. Lippman, of Detroit (Leslie D. Bloom, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas Read, Atty. Gen., Duncan C. McCrea, Pros. Atty., and William L. Brunner and Joseph L. Bannigan, Asst. Pros. Attys., all of Detroit, for the People.
In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 144, Pub. Acts 1937, known as the uniform criminal extradition act, the Governor of the State of Michigan, on June 20, 1938, issued his warrant for the arrest of John Molisak as an alleged fugitive from justice from the state of Ohio.
In the state of Ohio a complaint and warrant charged Molisak with the crime of embezzlement and the governor of that state demanded his rendition. Rendition was granted. Thereupon, on June 21, 1938, Molisak, by his attorney, petitioned the Wayne circuit court for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was never in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, where the embezzlement was charged to have been committed on May 29, 1931, and denied being the John Molisak sought in the extradition proceeding.
At the hearing on the petition in the Wayne circuit May Sherman was a witness and positively identified Molisak as the man who embezzled $2,000 in money she handed to him at her home in Cleveland, Ohio, on May 29, 1931. Six witnesses in behalf of Molisak testified that he was at his mother-in-law's farm, near Pinconning, Michigan, May 29, 1931, and for some days before and after that date.
The court, over objection, admitted Molisak's police record in evidence. The court found the alibi not established, and review by appeal in the nature of certiorari is here prosecuted.
In this review we do not pass upon the weight of the evidence, only making an examination to note whether the finding of the court was supported by any credible evidence.
The court believed the complaining witness and we cannot decide the issue of alibi otherwise in this review.
Whether petitioner's police record was admissible or not is of no decisive moment.
Counsel for petitioner claims the complaint made in Ohio did not sufficiently charge the crime of embezzlement in that it did not state whose money was taken.
The complaint averred that John Molisak, on May 29, 1931, at the county of Cuyahoga, as the agent of May Sherman, did fraudulently embezzle and convert to his own use the sum of $2,000, which came into his possession by virtue of his employment as agent by said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martz, In re
...L.R.A. 325; Morrison v. Dwyer, 143 Iowa 502, 121 N.W. 1064; State ex rel. Webster v. Moeller, 191 Minn. 193, 253 N.W. 668; Ex parte Molisak, 291 Mich. 46, 288 N.W. 329; Lacondra v. Hermann, 343 Ill. 608, 175 N.E. 820, at page 823; In re Murphy, 321 Mass. 206, 72 N.E.2d 413; People ex rel. G......
-
People v. Casper, Docket No. 7836
...to examine the record on appeal to determine whether the jury's finding of fact is supported by credible evidence. In re Petition of Molisak (1939), 291 Mich. 46, 288 N.W. 329. Accordingly, this Court will not disturb the verdict unless the evidence fails to support the finding of fact. Peo......
- Bittker v. Groves
-
People v. Person, Docket No. 3938
...to examine the record on appeal to determine whether the jury's finding of fact is supported by credible evidence. In re Petition of Molisak (1939), 291 Mich. 46, 288 N.W. 329. Accordingly, this Court will not disturb the verdict unless the evidence fails to support the finding of fact. Peo......