People v. Gadson, 85
| Decision Date | 17 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 85,85 |
| Citation | 83 N.W.2d 227,348 Mich. 307 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee. v. Betty Jane GADSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Leitson & Dean, Richard C. Fruit, Flint, for defendant and appellant.
Thomas M. Kavanagh, Atty. Gen., Edmund Shepherd, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Jerome F. O'Rourke, Pros. Atty., Edward P. Joseph, Asst. Pros. Atty., Flint, for the People.
Before the Entire Bench.
A jury found defendant guilty of larceny from the person of another. She appeals.
The complaining witness testified: that on the evening in question he had $146 folded up in his pocket when he entered a tavern; that while there he drank three shots of whiskey and met defendant; that he accompanied her in an automobile driven by her, stopped and bought some beer, of which he drank one bottle, and then drove to an industrial plant where they picked up a man who was defendant's friend; that the three stopped at a bar to drink whiskey and he had one shot; that they stopped to buy gasoline, for which he paid by giving defendant a $10 bill, from which he received no change; that he had also pulled his money out of his pocket on at least two other occasions when he had paid for whiskey or beer; that they drove on from the gasoline station and stopped again while defendant went to buy a pint of whiskey; that after midnight the three went to the house where defendant lived; that another woman was already there; that they went into the kitchen and poured a round of whiskey and he drank one; that he felt dizzy and the other woman escorted him to a bedroom where he lay down; that a few minutes later defendant entered the bedroom and proposed sexual intercourse, which he declined; that he then started to get up and she pushed him back down on the bed and wrestled with him; that she pulled his pants down to his knees, but did not take them off all the way (on cross examination he revised the latter statement and admitted that on preliminary examination he had testified that defendant had removed his pants completely and got about four feet away from the bed with them before he jumped up and grabbed them back, to which version he then adhered); that all the while he was wide awake and knew what was going on, but that he did not see nor feel defendant put her hand in his pocket or remove the money; that he had a little over $138 when he entered the bedroom but only 65 cents when he left; that when he got up from the bed he looked over the bed and on the floor to see if his money was lying there and that when defendant said she did not have it he 'looked in the room to see if it fell.'
Defendant stresses complaining witness' extensive drinking of intoxicants and dizziness that evening, his removal of his money from his pocket on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith-Anthony
...Michigan appears to have taken the minority view, requiring an actual taking from the physical person of the victim.30 For example, in People v. Gadson, this Court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence for the from-the-person element in a larceny-from-the-person case. 31 At trial, there ......
-
People v. Atley
...beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime charged by competent direct or circumstantial evidence. See People v. Gadson, 348 Mich. 307, 310, 83 N.W.2d 227 (1957); People v. Franczyk, 315 Mich. 384, 24 N.W.2d 87 At the conclusion of the people's proofs at trial, the defense counsel......
-
People v. Smith–Anthony
...of “stealing from the person of another” requires more than vague proximity between victim and perpetrator. See People v. Gadson, 348 Mich. 307, 308–310, 83 N.W.2d 227 (1957) (overturning a larceny-from-the-person conviction when the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt......
-
People v. Toodle
...people must prove every element of the crime charged by direct or circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Gadson, 348 Mich. 307, 83 N.W.2d 227 (1957). The credibility and weight to be given the testimony of a witness is within the province of the jury. People v. Morris,......