People v. Butler
| Decision Date | 27 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 9212,No. 3,3 |
| Citation | 183 N.W.2d 595,27 Mich.App. 404 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Allen E. BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
John L. McNamara, O'Connor, McNamara & O'Keeffe, Ionia, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Walter M. Marks, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and HOLBROOK and T. M. BURNS, JJ.
Defendant Allen E. Butler was tried by a jury and convicted of breaking and entering in violation of M.C.L.A. § 750.110 (Stat.Ann.Cum.Supp. § 28.305). The evidence presented at trial indicated that defendant and his brother broke the front window of Fred's Super Market in Ionia and removed 16 to 20 cartons of cigarettes. Defendant claimed that he broke the window by accident, that he removed no cigarettes and that he was intoxicated. He now appeals as of right and contends that he was improperly cross-examined as to his prior criminal record and that the people did not establish the requisite intent to support a conviction.
A defendant in a criminal action has been deprived of adequate representation by counsel only if counsel's lack of diligence or competence reduces the trial to a farce or sham. People v. Crawford (1969), 16 Mich.App. 92, 167 N.W.2d 814; People v. Higginbotham (1970), 21 Mich.App. 489, 175 N.W.2d 557. The record in the present case does not indicate the existence of farce or sham and we find that defense counsel adequately represented his client. There is no evidence that defendant was injured by the waiver of preliminary examination or his attorney's failure to appear at the arraignment.
In light of the fact that defendant voluntarily testified, he placed his own credibility in issue and the propriety of cross-examination as to prior convictions cannot be questioned. M.C.L.A. § 600.2158 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 27A.2158). People v. Di Paolo (1962) 366 Mich. 394, 115 N.W.2d 78.
The requisite intent for the crime of breaking and entering may be inferred from the totality of circumstances disclosed by the testimony. People v. Saunders (1970), 25 Mich.App. 149, 181 N.W.2d 4; People v. Gollman (1966), 3 Mich.App. 463, 142 N.W.2d 903. The record contains sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer the intent required to support a conviction for breaking and entering.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Coffman
...People v. Di Paolo, 366 Mich. 394, 115 N.W.2d 78 (1962); People v. Cook, 24 Mich.App. 401, 180 N.W.2d 354 (1970); People v. Butler, 27 Mich.App. 404, 183 N.W.2d 595 (1970); People v. Cantrell, 27 Mich.App. 210, 183 N.W.2d 401 (1970); People v. Payne, 27 Mich.App. 133, 183 N.W.2d 371 (1970).......
-
People v. Palmer
...See People v. Curley, 99 Mich. 238, 58 N.W. 68 (1894); People v. Boyce, 314 Mich. 608, 23 N.W.2d 99 (1946); People v. Butler, 27 Mich.App. 404, 183 N.W.2d 595 (1970); People v. Hughes, 27 Mich.App. 221, 183 N.W.2d 383 (1970).8 See People v. Johnson, 4 Mich.App. 205, 144 N.W.2d 646 (1966); P......
-
People v. Logue
...representation of counsel only if counsel's lack of diligence or competence reduced the trial to a farce or a sham. People v. Butler (1970), 27 Mich.App. 404, 183 N.W.2d 595; People v. Crawford (1969), 16 Mich.App. 92, 167 N.W.2d 814; People v. Higginbotham (1970), 21 Mich.App. 489, 175 N.W......
-
People v. Lawson, Docket No. 9202
...v. White (1970), 26 Mich.App. 35, 181 N.W.2d 803; People v. Cantrell (1970), 27 Mich.App. 210, 183 N.W.2d 401; and People v. Butler (1970), 27 Mich.App. 404, 183 N.W.2d 595. Testimony that the 13-year-old complainant said she had been raped was properly admitted under the ancient rule of th......