People v. Alexander, Docket No. 10392
| Decision Date | 27 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 10392,2 |
| Citation | 35 Mich.App. 281,192 N.W.2d 371 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Sidney Fershtman, Detroit, for defendant-appellant. Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Thomas G. Plunkett, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before R. B. BURNS, P.J., and FITZGERALD and J. H. GILLIS, JJ.
Defendant, John Alexander, and Eugene Gabbard, a codefendant, were charged with obstructing justice, M.C.L.A. § 750.505 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.773), and conspiracy to obstruct justice, M.C.L.A. § 750.157a (Stat.Ann.1971 Cum.Supp. § 28.354(1)). Defendant Alexander, in a jury trial, was found guilty on both counts. Codefendant Gabbard was found not guilty on each charge.
Defendant Alexander contends there was insufficient evidence adduced at trial to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An examination of the record discloses more than ample testimony to support the conviction of obstructing justifice. People v. Coleman (1957), 350 Mich. 268, 86 N.W.2d 281. Additionally, defendant's own testimony corroborates the bulk of the testimony presented by the people.
Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in accepting the verdict from the jury on the second charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice in light of the fact that the codefendant was acquitted of the same charge.
'A conspiracy is a partnership in criminal purposes.' United States v. Kissel (1910), 218 U.S. 601, 608 (31 S.Ct. 124, 126, 54 L.Ed. 1168, 1179). Our Michigan Courts have stated:
'There is no such thing as a one man conspiracy.' People v. Heidt (1945), 312 Mich. 629, 642, 20 N.W.2d 751, 756; see also: People v. Cooper (1950), 326 Mich. 514, 518, 40 N.W.2d 708.
When the jury found the codefendant not guilty, the court could not accept the verdict of guilty on the conspiracy charge in defendant Alexander's case. People v. Cooper, Supra.
However, the crime of obstructing justice, unlike the conspiracy count, is not inherently a joint act. An acquittal of the codefendant on this count does not Per se absolve defendant. People v. Frye (1929), 248 Mich. 678, 227 N.W. 748.
Other allegations of error do not warrant a discussion.
Defendant's conviction on the charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice is set aside without a new trial. Defendant's conviction on the charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Davis
...case because a plurality of agents is not logically necessary to commit the offense of obstruction of justice, see People v. Alexander, 35 Mich.App. 281, 192 N.W.2d 371 (1971). In the context of this case, it has been contended that a police officer's failure to arrest a felon for a corrupt......
-
People v. Anderson
...with conspiracy operates to bar prosecution or conviction as to the other person charged with the same act. People v. Alexander, 35 Mich.App. 281, 283; 192 NW2d 371 (1971); see, generally, Anno: Prosecution or Conviction of One Party to Alleged Conspiracy as Affected by Disposition of Case ......
-
People v. Losey
...all but one coconspirator is acquitted, the remaining coconspirator cannot be convicted on a conspiracy charge. People v. Alexander, 35 Mich.App. 281, 192 N.W.2d 371 (1971). See generally, Anno: Prosecution or Conviction of One Party to Alleged Conspiracy as Affected by Disposition of Case ......
-
People v. Ringstaff, Docket Nos. 17526
...point obtain a reversal or new trial.' Defendants rely on People v. Frye, 248 Mich. 678, 227 N.W. 748 (1929), and People v. Alexander, 35 Mich.App. 281, 192 N.W.2d 371 (1971), for the proposition that defendant's cannot be found guilty of conspiracy where three persons charged with the same......