People v. Blakes

• Decision Date: 06 October 1969
• Docket Number: No. 9,9
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Walter BLAKES and Emmett Pruitt, Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 832

170 N.W.2d 832

382 Mich. 570

The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Walter BLAKES and Emmett Pruitt, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 9.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 6, 1969.

James K. Miller, Kent County Pros. Atty., S. J. Venema, Chief Appellate Division, Donald E. Zerial, Asst. Pros. Atty., Grand Rapids, for appellee.

Milton R. Henry, Pontiac, for appellants Blakes and Pruitt.

Before the Entire Bench.

KELLY, Justice.

A three-month Grand Rapids police department investigation and surveillance of persons suspected of operating a numbers lottery resulted in complaint and warrant accusing Walter Blakes, Emmett Pruitt, LaVerne Holbrook and Willis Brown with conspiring together to violate the gaming laws. At the preliminary examination, LaVerne Holbrook was discharged from custody upon motion by the prosecuting attorney.

Pruitt, Blake and Brown waived a jury trial and were found guilty by then Superior Court Judge VanderPloeg of conspiring together to violate the gaming and gambling law (C.L.S.1961, § 750.505 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.773)).

The Court of Appeals (People v. Blakes (1966), 4 Mich.App. 13, 143 N.W.2d 769) affirmed the Pruitt and Blakes convictions, but reversed the judgment of conviction as to Willis Brown, stating (p. 18, 143 N.W.2d p. 771):

'There is no testimony in the printed record or in the notebooks submitted in evidence that he had any knowledge of said conspiracy.'

In this appeal, appellants Pruitt and Blakes present the following question:

'Were the proofs received in the conspiracy trial of the appellants below sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilt?'

At the request of the Grand Rapids police department, Cass county deputy sheriff Andrew Chavaus came to Grand Rapids to assist in acquiring evidence against the defendants. He testified that he placed number policy bets with Emmett Pruitt on December 18, 19, 20 and 21, 1963.

On the same day that Chavaus placed his last bet, namely December 21, 1963, all three defendants were arrested, but no gambling paraphernalia was found at the time of their arrests.

Immediately after arrest defendant Blakes was brought by the police to the LaVerne Holbrook apartment, located on Grandville street, and while the officers were searching this apartment, defendant Blakes said, 'The stuff that you fellows are looking for is over there in that room right down there off the hall.' In this room pointed out by Blakes, a number of numbers tickets and adding machine tapes were found and, also, the betting slips which deputy sheriff Chavaus had purchased from defendant Pruitt.

Applying our decisions in People v. Heidt (1945), 312 Mich. 629, 20 N.W.2d 751, and People v. Asta (1953), 337 Mich 590, 60 N.W.2d 472, we must conclude that Blakes' statement at the Holbrook apartment shortly after his arrest cannot be used to establish the Corpus delicti of this alleged conspiracy.

We quote from defendants' brief:

'Appellants show that there was no evidence in the record before the Court of Appeals to suggest that the defendant Pruitt was ever seen in the company of the defendant Blakes. While the Court of Appeals stated in its opinion that:

"The defendants were observed communicating with one another and exchanging materials with one another in daily routine,' (sic)

there is absolutely nothing in the transcript of proceedings to support this statement. Officer Patterson said that from September 27, 1963 he saw the defendant Pruitt almost everyday, but that he did not see the defendant Brown, or Blakes until 'the latter part of November.'

'Further, in all the transcript Blakes was seen at 431 Grandville on a number of occasions, But with the defendant Brown. Only once in all the evidence was Blakes ever seen transfering, receiving, or exchanging anything and that was on December 20, 1963, the day before his arrest when he was seen to receive an envelope from Brown, not Pruitt. It is true that Brown was receiving something from Pruitt, but whatever this was, it could not be thought to have been contraband, as the Court of Appeals held that Brown did nothing under the record to justify his being convicted or considered a part of any alleged conspiracy, and he was Acquitted by the Court of Appeals.

'In reading the entire transcript there simply is not sufficient evidence contained therein to associate Pruitt and Blakes in a common enterprise. * * *

'Even though gambling materials, in some small quantity, were found located at the Grandville address, after the arrest of the defendant Blakes, the testimony contained in the transcript shows that this house was the property of one Felix Holbook, who appeared in Count I of the information as a co-conspirator, but who was discharged from custody upon the examination of the cause. * * *

'The only other testimony in the record went to the appellant Pruitt, and showed that on December 18, 19, 20 and 21st, of 1963 Andrew Chavaus paid Pruitt for a number but Pruitt was not seen in contact with Blakes on any of these dates. No evidence shows Blakes to have been involved in any way in this set of circumstances. Cf. Sanders v. U.S., (United States v. Saunders, 6 Cir.,) 325 F.2d 840 as being importantly similar.

'A criminal connection between Pruitt and Blakes cannot be based upon mere surmise but must clearly appear from the proofs. As was said in Ingram v. U.S., 360 U.S. 672, at page 680, (79 S.Ct. 1314, 3 L.Ed.2d 1503):

"To establish the intent the evidence of knowledge must be clear not equivocal * * *. This because charges of conspiracy are not to be made out by piling inference upon inference thus fashioning * * * a dragnet to trap all substantive crimes.'

'Finally, it must be remembered that the charge made below was one of conspiracy and No one,...