People v. Goeppner
| Decision Date | 04 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 6200,1 |
| Citation | 20 Mich.App. 425,174 N.W.2d 143 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew GOEPPNER and John V. Carl, III, Defendants-Appellants |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Richard Daguanno, Southfield, for defendants-appellants.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief Appellate Division, Leonard Meyers, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and McGREGOR and V. J. BRENNAN, JJ.
Defendants were arrested and charged with armed robbery pursuant to the provisions of M.C.L.A. § 750.529 (Stat.Ann.1969 Cum.Supp. § 28.797), and on April 18, 1968, following a joint non-jury trial, were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. A delayed motion for new trial was denied on November 18, 1968, and defendants now bring this appeal, making various allegations of error.
During the course of the trial, testimony was taken from a police officer to the effect that he had obtained a warrant for the arrest of defendant Carl on a charge of breaking and entering. It appears that the officer had gone to a dwelling on Joy road in Detroit, Michigan, where he found the defendant Carl along with five other persons, placed him under arrest and proceeded to search the premises. A motion to suppress the evidence so obtained was denied and three wallets and some money allegedly stolen during the robbery were admitted over the objection of defendants.
The testimony indicated that the defendant Carl was arrested on the first floor of the dwelling, while the seizure of the wallets had taken place on the second floor. It was also established that none of the persons arrested in the dwelling actually lived there and neither they nor the owners had consented to a search of the premises.
The issues presented for consideration on this appeal may be stated thus:
1. Did the trial court err in admitting evidence seized without a warrant from areas of the residence wherein defendant Carl was arrested to which the officers had not gained lawful access?
2. Does the constitutional protection against the illegal search of residential premises* extend to persons having no right to the possession or control of the premises searched?
The third issue raised, relating to the weight of the evidence, is entirely without merit and will not be discussed as a reading of the transcript clearly indicates that there was sufficient testimony to warrant a finding of guilt by the court.
Defendants contend that under long-standing Michigan law, as illustrated by People v. Conway (1923), 225 Mich. 152, 195 N.W. 679, and its exclusion of the infamous 'White Mule', as well as a recent Federal decision, the search made in the instant case was illegal and the evidence seized improperly admitted. This Court is in full agreement with defendants' contention that Conway is still the law in Michigan. We note that the rule on searches incident to a lawful arrest is laid down in 2 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law and Procedure (2d), § 875, pp. 1147--1148, which states:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Blassingame
...to raise the warrantless search issue. See for example, People v. Scott, 44 Mich.App. 462, 205 N.W.2d 291 (1973); People v. Goeppner, 20 Mich.App. 425, 174 N.W.2d 143 (1969). There is also some indication that the defendant may have abandoned the residence, and lacked standing for that reas......
-
People v. McGath, Docket No. 7109
...the instant trial. Appellants have no standing to assert that a delay in Logan's sentence violated their rights, People v. Goeppner (1969), 20 Mich.App. 425, 174 N.W.2d 143. Secondly, Logan testified at the trial that he had not been promised anything in exchange for his testimony. Appellan......
-
People v. Langley
... ... '(N)o rights, constitutional or otherwise, are invaded when property not under the control of defendant is searched.' People v. Hale, 7 Mich.App. 127, 132, 151 N.W.2d 240, 242 (1967), People v. Goeppner, 20 Mich.App. 425, 429, 174 ... N.W.2d 143 (1969), People v. Joshua, 32 Mich.App. 581, 585, 189 N.W.2d 105 (1971), Lv. den., 386 Mich. 758 (1971) ... The record in the present case is not clear as to what persons, outside of the deceased, had possession or control of the area ... ...
- Hosko v. Hosko