People v. Compton, Docket No. 6451
| Decision Date | 27 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 6451,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 23 Mich.App. 42,178 N.W.2d 133 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kearney COMPTON, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Arthur J. Koscinski, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., William B. McIntyre, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and QUINN and V. J. BRENNAN, JJ.
Defendant and his brother, Chester Compton, were jointly tried and convicted by a jury of breaking and entering a gun shop with intent to commit larceny. M.C.L.A. § 750.110 (Stat.Ann.1970 Cum.Supp. § 28.305). The breaking and entering occurred around 1 a.m., March 4, 1968. Both Comptons were arrested at the scene, Chester inside the gun shop, Kearney outside in a parked automobile.
At trial, the manager of the shop testified that the Comptons, together with two other men, were in the shop two days before the breaking and entering. One of the arresting officers testified that after arriving at the scene and while patrolling the alley behind the shop, he discovered a Cadillac automobile with out-county plates parked nearby. He approached the Cadillac and found defendant lying down on the front seat. After ordering defendant out and placing him under arrest, he found a wallet inside the automobile containing the identification of Chester Compton, who had already been arrested.
On appeal, defendant alleges error in the trial court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict of not guilty. Defendant contends that the testimony offered at trial was insufficient to show that defendant aided and abetted or in any way participated in the crime charged in the information. The question presented by a motion for directed verdict of not guilty is whether there is evidence from which the jury can reasonably infer all the elements of the crime charged. People v. Qualls (1968), 9 Mich.App. 689, 158 N.W.2d 60; 2 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law and Procedure, § 632, p. 817. From the evidence adduced at trial, the motion for directed verdict was properly denied.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred by permitting the jury to suspend its deliberations over the long Memorial Day weekend. At the time of the adjournment on Wednesday, May 29, 1968, the jury was undecided as to one of the Comptons. Since he was arrested outside the shop, defendant surmises that it must have been him and then alleges, without proving, that the holiday dulled the memory of the individual jurors. We will not consider this assignment as the record shows that defendan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Bell
...* 4. Under Michigan law, a defendant's self-serving hearsay statements are properly excluded from evidence. See People v. Compton, 23 Mich. App. 42, 45; 178 N. W. 2d 133 (1970); See also People v. Jensen, 222 Mich. App. 575, 581; 564 N.W. 2d 192 (1997); vacated in part on other grds, 456 Mi......
-
People v. Charles
...reasonably infer all of the elements of the crime charged. People v. Moore, 51 Mich.App. 48, 214 N.W.2d 548 (1974); People v. Compton, 23 Mich.App. 42, 178 N.W.2d 133 (1970). In determining whether or not there was sufficient evidence on each essential element of the offense of first-degree......
-
People v. Burse, Docket No. 18972
...is evidence, real or circumstantial, from which a jury can reasonably infer all the elements of the crime charged. People v. Compton, 23 Mich.App. 42, 178 N.W.2d 133 (1970); People v. Compian, 38 Mich.App. 289, 196 N.W.2d 353 (1972). See, also, People v. Crown, 33 Mich.App. 266, 189 N.W.2d ......
-
Wieczorek v. Harry
...Michigan law, a defendant's self-serving hearsay statements are properly excluded from evidence. See People v. Compton, 45; 178 N. W. 2d 133 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970). Because Petitioner's wife's testimony would have been inadmissible hearsay evidence and there is nothing in Petitioner's pleadi......