People v. Davenport
Decision Date | 01 May 1979 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 77-1261 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William DAVENPORT, Defendant-Appellant. 89 Mich.App. 678, 282 N.W.2d 179 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[89 MICHAPP 680] James R. Neuhard, State App. Defender by Michael E. Turner, Deputy State App. Defender, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Eugene C. Penzien, Pros. Atty., George Mullison, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before WALSH, P. J., and T. M. BURNS and D. E. HOLBROOK, Jr., JJ.
On June 30, 1976, defendant was convicted by a jury of carrying a firearm with unlawful intent, M.C.L. § 750.226; M.S.A. § 28.423, and carrying a concealed weapon, M.C.L. § 750.227; M.S.A. § 28.424. Given concurrent sentences of 21/2 to 5 years in prison he appeals as of right.
A deputy sheriff testified that he was in the Pickle Barrel Bar with two other deputies. While at the bar, he observed defendant enter the premises with two other individuals. At that time he saw the outline of a handgun in defendant's right-hand pants pocket. When defendant and the two other individuals left the building, the three deputies followed. The three deputies caught defendant once, but he got away. Upon catching him the second time, one deputy testified that defendant put his right hand in his right pants pocket. Once [89 MICHAPP 681] this occurred, all three deputies immediately grabbed defendant's right arm and removed the weapon. Testimony was elicited that when defendant's hand was forcibly removed from his right-hand pocket the gun was not in it. A patrolman testified that defendant had his hand in his right front pocket and that, "I could see the outline of a gun and he had his hand on the grip."
Following conclusion of the People's case, defendant rested without presenting any proof, making motions for directed verdicts on both counts. Defendant contends that the motions for directed verdict were improperly denied. A directed verdict may only be granted where there is no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, on each material element of the offense. People v. Maliskey, 77 Mich.App. 444, 448, 258 N.W.2d 512 (1977), People v. Hodo, 51 Mich.App. 628, 639, 215 N.W.2d 733 (1974). A review of the record indicates that there was some evidence introduced on each material element of both offenses. Defendant correctly argues that there were possible innocent theories concerning why his hand was in his pocket at the time of his arrest, however the prosecution is not required to negate every possible innocent theory in order to avoid a directed verdict of acquittal. People v. Edgar, 75 Mich.App. 467, 255 N.W.2d 648 (1977).
Defendant's primary contention, however, is that a conviction for both offenses violates double jeopardy. The Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy consists of three separate constitutional protections. It protects against the second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and against multiple punishments for the same offense. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). [89 MICHAPP 682] It is the protection against multiple punishments for the same offense that is at issue in this case. In Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2225, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), the United States Supreme Court reiterated the test applicable to multiple punishments.
The elements of carrying a firearm with unlawful intent, M.C.L. § 750.226; M.S.A. § 28.423, are that the defendant be armed with a firearm, that at the time he was so armed he intended to use the firearm, and that he intended to use the firearm unlawfully against the person of another. CJI 11:2:01. The elements of carrying a concealed weapon, M.C.L. § 750.227; M.S.A. § 28.424, as far as this case is concerned, are that the defendant merely carried a pistol and that the pistol was concealed on or about his person. CJI 11:1:01. Each charge has the common element that defendant carried a pistol, but the carrying the concealed weapon charge requires proof that the pistol was concealed on or about the person of the defendant, and the [89 MICHAPP 683] going armed with the firearm with unlawful intent requires proof that the defendant intended to use the pistol unlawfully against the person of another. Since each requires proof of a fact the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, and punishment for both offenses would not violate double jeopardy.
Defendant argues that the evidence which proved him guilty of carrying a firearm with unlawful intent necessarily proved him guilty of a carrying a concealed weapon. This argument is based upon the Michigan Supreme Court's holding in People v. Jones, 395 Mich. 379, 387-389, 236 N.W.2d 461, 464 (1975), which held that lesser included offenses in Michigan include both necessarily included lesser offenses and those lesser offenses that are related and hence cognate. The Court stated:
[89 MICHAPP 684] It is arguable Brown v. Ohio, supra, held that a lesser included offense and a greater offense are the same under Blockburger. It is also arguable that The expansive definition of lesser included offenses found in Jones precludes conviction for cognate lesser included offenses, as well as for necessarily lesser included offenses, after a conviction of the greater offense. But see People v. Risher, 78 Mich.App. 431, 260 N.W.2d 121 (1977), Wayne County Prosecutor v. Recorder's Court Judge, 85 Mich.App. 727, 272...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Bergh
...place of business, or other land possessed by him, and without a license to do so. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227; People v. Davenport, 282 N.W.2d 179, 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). To "carry" means "to hold, transport, or take from one location to another." People v. Terry, 335 N.W.2d 116, 118 (M......
-
People v. Harrington, Docket No. 129445
...unlawfully use the weapon against another person. People v. Smith, 393 Mich. 432, 437, 225 N.W.2d 165 (1975); People v. Davenport, 89 Mich.App. 678, 682, 282 N.W.2d 179 (1979); CJI2d In the assault statute, the emphasis is on punishing crimes injurious to other people, regardless of whether......
-
Redding v. Horton
...the defendant carried a weapon; and, (2) that the weapon was concealed on or about the defendant's person. People v. Davenport, 89 Mich. App. 678, 682; 282 N.W. 2d 179 (1979). The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the claim:Though defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence regard......
-
People v. Robinson
...two offenses may share one element, they are not cognate where they serve to remedy two separate problems. People v. Davenport, 89 Mich.App. 678, 683, 282 N.W.2d 179 (1979). In the instant case, CSC I subsection (c) and CSC III subsection (b) share an overlapping element: sexual penetration......