People v. Ford, Docket No. 4620
| Decision Date | 27 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Docket No. 4620,3 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lewis FORD, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Alfred M. Butzbaugh, Butzbaugh & Page, Benton Harbor, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Ronald J. Taylor, Pros. Atty., Berrien County, St. Joseph, for appellee.
Before R. B. BURNS, P.J., and HOLBROOK and LEVIN, JJ.
Defendant appeals a jury trial conviction of armed robbery. M.C.L.A. § 750.529 (Stat.Ann.1969 Cum.Supp. § 28.797). On appeal, defendant questions the propriety of the introduction of certain exhibits offered by the People on the basis that they should have been excluded inasmuch as some were obtained by an illegal search and seizure, and others were not properly identified and connected with the defendant. Defendant further contends there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defendant's first issue has been previously decided in the companion case of People v. Walker (1968), 15 Mich.App. 25, 165 N.W.2d 871. Walker and the present defendant, Lewis Ford, were involved in the same offense and were in the same vehicle where apprehension and the alleged illegal search and seizure of evidence took place. In Walker the Court of Appeals held (p. 26, 165 N.W.2d p. 871):
People v. Walker, Supra, establishes that the evidence seized was admissible. It is difficult to believe that one of the four persons apprehended within 10 minutes of the robbery while sitting in an automobile surrounded by loose money, a pistol, face masks, keys to the robbed store, etc., took no part in the actual robbery. The distinction between accessory and principal has been abolished. M.C.L.A. § 767.39 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.979).
Evidence produced at trial, if believed, could certainly lead to a reasonable inference that this defendant was a party to the offense.
Where there is evidence from which a jury could reasonably find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a reviewing court will not interfere with the jury's determination. The test is not whether the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, but whether the evidence warrants a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged. People v. Schram (1965), 1 Mich.App. 279, 136 N.W.2d 44; People v. Jones (1965), 1 Mich.App. 633, 137 N.W.2d 748; People v. Washington (1966), 4 Mich.App. 453, 145 N.W.2d 292; People v. Galarno (1966), 3 Mich.App. 491, 142 N.W.2d 871.
Appellate Courts do not constitute a reviewing jury and do not hear cases anew upon the evidence presented in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuller v. Anderson
...which, if believed, could certainly lead to a reasonable inference that defendant was a party to the offense? People v. Ford, 19 Mich.App. 519 (173 N.W.2d 3) (1969). There was evidence that defendant came to the scene with Meadows and others; that defendant stood at a gate near the alley be......
-
People v. Ward
...GCR 1963, 853.2(2). We conclude that defendant is barred from raising these same issues before this Court. See People v. Ford, 19 Mich.App. 519, 173 N.W.2d 3 (1969). Defendant next maintains that the trial court erred in allowing admission of items seized from the room at the Wolverine Inn ......
-
People v. White, Docket Nos. 16589--16591
...the possibility that his presence at the scene was involuntary or occasioned by duress. Under the decisions in People v. Ford, 19 Mich.App. 519, 173 N.W.2d 3 (1969), People v. Fuller, 44 Mich.App. 297, 205 N.W.2d 287 (1973), the circumstantial evidence in the case at bar is sufficient to ra......
-
People v. McClain
...People v. Thomas (1967), 7 Mich.App. 103, 151 N.W.2d 186; People v. Heard (1969), 19 Mich.App. 516, 172 N.W.2d 889; People v. Ford (1969), 19 Mich.App. 519, 173 N.W.2d 3; People v. Mays (1969), 19 Mich.App. 588, 172 N.W.2d 900. Reviewing the record, we find there was sufficient evidence, if......