People v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 29 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 4027,2 |
| Citation | 165 N.W.2d 615,14 Mich.App. 515 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Blaine COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Lawrence A. Burns, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert N. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, George N. Parris, Pros. Atty., Thaddeus F. Hamera, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Don L. Milbourn, Asst. Pros. Atty., Macomb County, Mt. Clemens, for appellee.
Before QUINN, P.J., and HOLBROOK and VANDER WAL, * JJ.
Defendant's jury trial resulted in his conviction May 9, 1967 on a charge of armed robbery, ** and he was sentenced May 18, 1967 to a term of 20 to 40 years. His appeal raises 7 issues.
Defendant's first contention is that hearsay testimony was admitted at trial in relation to the amount and denomination of money in the possession of the complaining witness just prior to the robbery. The record does not establish that the testimony complained of was hearsay.
The third point raised by defendant is that error was committed by admitting evidence of his identification by police photographs when defendant did not take the stand. No objection to this evidence was made below, and the question is not saved for review. Taylor v. Lowe (1964), 371 Mich. 282, 126 N.W.2d 104.
Defendant's fourth, fifth and seventh issues relate to instructions to the jury. Although afforded the opportunity, defendant failed to object to the instructions given. He cannot now complain. GCR 1963, 516.2.
At trial, over objection of defendant, the people were permitted to show that defendant had large sums of money in his possession the day after the robbery, and it was not shown to be money from the robbery. This, defendant contends, was reversible error absent a foundation showing his impecuniousness prior to the robbery. To support this position, defendant cites State v. Ball (Mo.1960), 339 S.W.2d 783, and People v. Orloff (1944), 65 Cal.App.2d 614, 151 P.2d 288. We find Ball to be factually inapposite and Orloff was disavowed in People v. Gardner (1954), 128 Cal.App.2d 1, 274 P.2d 908.
91 A.L.R.2d 1046, 1048, states the majority on this point as follows:
'Where a defendant is charged with a crime which is of such a nature that the acquisition of money may be regarded as a natural result of its perpetration, and there is other evidence of the accused's guilt, evidence of the defendant's sudden acquisition of money, or of a marked improvement in his financial condition at or subsequent to the time of the commission of the offense, is admissible, although the source of the money is not definitely traced.'
This we believe is a sound statement of the law on the question, and we adopt it as controlling in this case.
Finally, defendant asserts reversible error was committed at trial because the prosecuting attorney was not required to indorse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Heidelbach
...330, 171 N.E. 393 (expenditures in excess of usual income).4 State v. Cofer (1952), 73 Idaho 181, 249 P.2d 197; People v. Coleman (1968), 14 Mich.App. 515, 165 N.W.2d 615; State v. Parr (1964), 64 Wash.2d 921, 395 P.2d 196. Illinois and Iowa appear to have taken the same position: People v.......
-
People v. Jackson, Docket No. 6075
...'No objection to the charge'. The errors relied on for appellate relief were not preserved. GCR 1963, 516.2, People v. Coleman (1968), 14 Mich.App. 515, 165 N.W.2d 615. A review of this record does not reveal that a clear injustice will be done if we abide by the rule. People v. Paul F. Bak......
-
People v. White, Docket No. 9494
...case. Failure of defendant to object at trial to the identification procedure precludes our review of this issue. People v. Coleman (1968), 14 Mich.App. 515, 165 N.W.2d 615. This record demonstrates no clear injustice, People v. Jackson (1969), 17 Mich.App. 675, 170 N.W.2d 259, and we decli......