People v. Atley
| Decision Date | 02 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 11,11 |
| Citation | 220 N.W.2d 465,392 Mich. 298 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lewis John ATLEY, Defendant-Appellant. 392 Mich. 298, 220 N.W.2d 465 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
State Appellate Defender Office by Stuart M. Israel, Asst. Defender, Detroit, Barbara Betsy, Research Asst., for defendant-appellant.
Before the Entire Bench.
The substantive issue raised by this case is whether there is sufficient evidence to
sustain the jury's verdict of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crime of conspiracy to sell marijuana. We find the evidence insufficient to infer a conspiracy to sell marijuana from the facts established by the testimony at trial.
Defendant Atley and two others, Loren Eaton and Michael Conley, were stopped on I--94 in Van Buren County on July 3, 1970, pursuant to a tip from a police informant who had accompanied the alleged co-conspirators to Missouri to pick marijuana. Atley was arrested after 127 pounds of raw marijuana was found in the trunk of the vehicle.
A three-count information charged that Atley:
'Feloniously and unlawfully did conspire, combine, confederate and agree together with Loren Victor Eaton and divers(e) other persons to tell a narcotic drug, to wit, marijuana . . ..' M.C.L.A. § 750.157a; M.S.A. § 28.354(1); M.C.L.A. § 335.152; M.S.A. § 18.1122.
He was also charged with unlawful possession of marijuana and unlawful control of marijuana, M.C.L.A. § 335.153; M.S.A. § 18.1123.
Atley stood trial alone. The outcome of proceedings, if any, against the alleged co-conspirators is not clear from the record in this case. It is clear, however, that the police informant was not arrested or charged. (T 104)
It was the theory of the prosecution that Atley conspired with Eaton, Hughes, and others to make an automobile trip to Kansas and Missouri to harvest a marijuana field and haul the marijuana back to Michigan where, allegedly, the plan was to dry it, cure it, and sell it.
The police informant, Michael Conley, testified that he had known Atley '(a) pproximately four, maybe five years' (T 86) when Atley approached him in June of 1970 concerning the possibility of driving a truck to haul marijuana from Kansas to Michigan. The informant stated that he 'was unemployed at the time' (T 102) and is characteristically unemployed '(a) great deal.' He testified that he took the initiative in contacting the FBI after Atley first suggested the marijuana picking expedition to him, and was in contact with police from the alleged planning stage through arrest (T 88103).
The informant furnished the transportation for Atley for trips to Kalamazoo during the alleged planning stage of the marijuana harvesting expedition, and himself rented and drove to Kansas and Missouri the automobile in which the marijuana was found. Atley reportedly had no automobile of his own and could not rent the car taken to Kansas and Missouri because he was underage. (T 108--109)
There is no evidence that the informant was subject to criminal charges in this case. He testified: 'Nothing was ever discussed about my conviction, or immunity, or anything.' (T 104) A prior misdemeanor conviction of the informant's was brought out on cross-examination but was not tied to his willingness to be an informant in this case.
The prosecution's case was founded on the testimony of police informant Conley regarding four meetings at which the conspiracy was allegedly planned. We set forth the informant's testimony pertinent to the planning of the crime in detail, as it is crucial to the proof of the conspiracy count.
The first meeting, according to the policy informant, was at a restaurant in Marshall '. . . mentioned that he wanted me (the informant) to drive a truck hauling marijuana from Kansas and Missouri to Michigan.' (T 88)
Michigan, in June, 1970. The informant testified that Atley:
The informant further testified that Kenneth Mills, a friend of Atley's, was present to this conversation and was to have been a participant in the expedition to Kansas and Missouri. Mills did not in fact accompany the alleged co-conspirators to Kansas and Missouri, and the informant did not have 'the slightest idea' (T 93) what became of Mills. Mills was not produced as a witness at defendant's trial.
The second meeting, at which Atley and the informant alone were present, reportedly occurred at Atley's place of employment on a Friday evening. The only substantive conversation at this meeting pertaining to the allegation of conspiracy is the informant's statement that 'he (Atley) asked me if I could take him to Kalamazoo.' (T 89)
The third meeting was in Kalamazoo. The informant testified that he drove Atley to a farmhouse there, and:
(T 91)
The informant testified further that Atley had summarized his conversation with one Rick Ash at the farmhouse, and that, basically, Atley had gone there to:
. . .' (T 91)
The fourth and critical meeting for purposes of the alleged conspiracy to sell marijuana occurred at Michael Hughes' home in Kalamazoo, where Hughes, Eaton, the informant, and Atley allegedly met. The informant recalled the following discussion preparatory to the trip to Kansas:
'. . . the defendant (Atley) mentioned something about going to Kansas, and Michael Hughes mentioned something about knowing some people in Kansas . . . (T 94--95)
(100)
The informant was more specific regarding the agreement that he alleges existed between Atley and himself:
'Q. (by the defense attorney, on cross-examination) . . . Did he (Atley) ever tell you specifically that he intended to sell this (marijuana), or is this your assumption?
'A. (by Conley, the police informant) He (Atley) said that he intended to sell it and give me part of the profit.
'Q. I see. Did he say where?
'A. No, sir.
'Q. Or when?
'A. No, sir.
'Q. Or how?
'A. No.
'Q. You had no agreement to assist him (Atley) in selling it, did you?
'A. No, sir.
'Q. Well, isn't it actually true that this matter of sale is your assumption 'A. It wasn't an assumption. It was a fact that the defendant related to me.
that this is what he intended to do with this amount?
'
(T 106--108) (Emphasis added.)
Michael Hughes, Rick Ash and Loren Eaton were the only alleged participants in the conspiracy produced as witnesses at Atley's trial.
Michael Hughes took the Fifth Amendment and gave no substantive testimony.
Rick Ash testified:
(T 117--118)
In response to the question whether he had ever given Atley money, he answered, 'No, sir.'
Loren Eaton recounted the planning of the trip to Kansas and Missouri as follows:
house.
'Q. And what exactly were you asked to do?
'A. Go to Kansas and pick marijuana.
'Q. And what if anything were you to get out of this?
'A. I was to be paid for doing this.
'Q. And by whom were you to be paid?
'A. Mr. Atley.
'Q. (by the defense attorney, on cross-examination) Did you ever have any arrangements or agreement with Mr. Atley or anybody else to get this marijuana 'A. Not for this purpose, not that I know of.
for the purpose of bringing it back in Michigan to sell?
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Missouri
...intent to accomplish the substantive offense. People v. McCracken, 88 Mich.App. 286, 295, 276 N.W.2d 609 (1979), People v. Atley, 392 Mich. 298, 310-311, 220 N.W.2d 465 (1974). For there to be a conspiracy, it must be shown that the coconspirators shared the requisite intents. Atley, supra,......
-
Cameron v. Birkett
...may be established, and frequently is established by circumstantial evidence, and may be based on inference. People v. Atley, 392 Mich. 298, 311, 220 N.W.2d 465, 471 (1974) (citations omitted); see also, Cotton, 191 Mich.App. at 393, 478 N.W.2d at More specifically, "[t]o prove conspiracy t......
-
Mack v. City of Detroit
...Mich. 902, 638 N.W.2d 744 (2001), as an example of this Court asking the parties if a precedent should be overruled, People v. Atley, 392 Mich. 298, 220 N.W.2d 465 (1974). We note that Justice CAVANAGH agreed that Atley should be overruled in his partial concurrence in Hardiman. 465 Mich. 4......
-
People v. Martin
...Instead, it is "sufficient if the circumstances, acts, and conduct of the partiers establish an agreement in fact." People v. Atley, 392 Mich. 298, 311, 220 N.W.2d 465 (1974), overruled on other grounds by People v. Hardiman, 466 Mich. 417, 428, 646 N.W.2d 158 (2002). Circumstantial evidenc......