People v. Hanenberg
| Decision Date | 02 March 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 120.,120. |
| Citation | 265 N.W. 506,274 Mich. 698 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HANENBERG. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles Hanenberg was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Arthur Webster, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench, except TOY, J.
Herman L. Berg, of Detroit, for appellant.
David H. Crowley, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Duncan C. McCrea, Pros. Atty. and Sweetman G. Smith, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Detroit, for the People.
Defendant reviews his conviction of the felony of receiving stolen property, a lady's wrist watch, of the value of $55, knowing it to have been stolen. If the value was $50 or less, the offense would be a misdemeanor. Act. No. 328, Pub.Acts 1931, p. 730, § 535. The questions here are upon the proof of value and the indorsement of names upon the information.
It is incumbent upon the people to prove the market value at the time and place of the larceny, People v. Gilbert, 163 Mich. 511, 128 N.W. 756, Ann.Cas. 1912A, 894, if there is a market value.
The watch was a gift to the owner two years before the theft, and was worn by her. She gave no testimony of the cost or value. A jeweler, who had had no experience in secondhand watches or jewelry, said its market value, when new, was not less than $65 at retail, but he could not give or guess or appraise its market value at the time it was stolen. He interjected the statement that there was no market value or ‘recognized price’ in used watches. He did not say there was no market for secondhand watches nor that they could not be sold readily. In view of his confessed ignorance of the subject and common knowledge that secondhand watches are salable, the interjection did not impeach defendant's testimony that there are dealers in secondhand watches, from whom he has purchased, and that the value of the watch was 6 or $7. Upon the testimony, defendant could not be convicted of more than a misdemeanor.
On cross-examination, defendant was asked whether he knew two persons named and had bought jewelry from them. He denied acquaintance and purchase. On rebuttal, those persons were offered as witnesses and objection made that their names were not on the information and their testimony was not proper rebuttal. They were permitted to testify without indorsement of their names nor showing of right to indorse. One said that the next morning after the theft of the watch he had sold stolen jewelry to defendant and defendant had made no inquiry as to his right to sell. The other said he witnessed the sale. The record does not show that this transaction had any reference to the property at bar.
If competent as proof of a collateral act to show intent under 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 17320, the testimony was admissible on the people's main case. Defendant had a right to require a showing by the people of proer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wilkins
...People v. Fleish, 306 Mich. 8, 9 N.W.2d 905 (1943); People v. Kirillidis, 285 Mich. 694, 281 N.W. 408 (1938); People v. Hanenberg, 274 Mich. 698, 265 N.W. 506 (1936), uttering and publishing a false check with intent to defraud; People v. Golner, 308 Mich. 351, 13 N.W.2d 846 (1944), bribery......
-
People v. Toodle
...of the goods is over the statutory minimum to make a felony, defendant must be convicted of only a misdemeanor. People v. Hanenberg, 274 Mich. 698, 265 N.W. 506 (1936). In People v. Vicuna, 141 Mich.App. 486, 495-496, 367 N.W.2d 887 (1985), this Court summarized the law applicable to aiding......
-
People v. Fuzi
...goods taken. Proof that the value of the goods was not less than $5 was an essential element of the felony charged. People v. Hanenberg, 274 Mich. 698, 265 N.W. 506 (1936); People v. Haynes, 36 Mich.App. 705, 193 N.W.2d 899 (1971). Statute and court rule require that before accepting a plea......
-
People v. Dyer
...subject of a theft, case law supports the use of fair market value as the relevant standard when such a value exists. People v. Hanenberg, 274 Mich 698; 265 NW 506 (1936); People v Gilbert, 163 Mich 511; 128 NW 756 (1910). Generally, proof of value is determined by reference to the time and......