People v. Bercheny, 14
| Decision Date | 04 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 14,14 |
| Citation | 196 N.W.2d 767,387 Mich. 431 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew BERCHENY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
In the Court of Appeals on Appeal from the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, Judges Holbrook, Burns and O'Hara.
William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Dept., Patricia J. Boyle, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Laurence C. Burgess, Detroit, for defendant and appellant.
Before the Entire Bench.
Defendant was convicted, along with five others, of possession of heroin; conspiracy to possess heroin; and control of heroin.
The conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Court of Appeals, Holbrook, J., writing an extensive opinion treating nine issues raised in great detail. The other members of the appellate panel concurred. People v. Iaconis (People v. Bercheny), 29 Mich.App. 443, 185 N.W.2d 609.
We granted leave to appeal. This writer and my Brother Williams dissented from grant of leave.
Nothing presented in the briefs or oral arguments persuades me that the decision of the Court of Appeals was clearly erroneous; or that the subject matter of the appeal involves legal principles of major significance to the jurisprudence of the State; or that the decision of the Court of Appeals is in conflict with other decisions of that Court or decisions of this Court. GCR 1963, 853.1.
The case of State v. McGee, Mo., 473 S.W.2d 686 (1971), is distinguishable on its facts. McGee involved marijuana in containers; here we have heroin in open piles. In McGee, the defendant lived in the house, his presence therefore did not raise the same inference as in the instant case. In McGee, the table was cluttered with objects unrelated to narcotics. The description of the table in this case was of a far different character.
I therefore adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case, and vote to affirm conviction for the reasons stated therein.
In People v. Sinclair (1972) 387 Mich. 91, 194 N.W.2d 878, for different reasons, a majority of this Court held that the statute proscribing the possession of marijuana was unconstitutional. For the reasons set forth in my opinion in Sinclair, I am convinced that the statute's proscription of possession and use of heroin is equally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wolfe
...Supreme Court, Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140, 75 S.Ct. 127, 138, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954), by this Court, People v. Bercheny, 387 Mich. 431, 196 N.W.2d 767 (1972), and by virtually every federal circuit court. "It is now understood that a single test applies, regardless of the kind......
-
People v. Konrad
...Harper, 365 Mich. 494, 507, 113 N.W.2d 808 (1962). This Court also approved the notion of constructive possession in People v. Bercheny, 387 Mich. 431, 196 N.W.2d 767 (1972). The defendant, along with five others, had been convicted of possession of heroin, conspiracy to possess heroin, and......
-
People v. Sherbine
...44 Mich.App. 308, 205 N.W.2d 267 (1973); People v. Iaconis, 29 Mich.App. 443, 185 N.W.2d 609 (1971), aff'd sub nom People v. Bercheny, 387 Mich. 431, 196 N.W.2d 767 (1972).In People v. Rodriguez, 65 Mich.App. 723, 238 N.W.2d 385 (1975), lv. den. 396 Mich. 852 (1976), the Court of Appeals, w......
-
People v. Stafford
...when it amends an information to include a new charge on which a defendant did not have a preliminary examination, People v. Bercheny, 387 Mich. 431, 196 N.W.2d 767 (1972). 4 In Bercheny, the Court found that the amendment of the information addressed form rather than substance and that the......