People v. Hatch
| Decision Date | 09 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 84648 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Thomas HATCH, Defendant-Appellant. 156 Mich.App. 265, 401 N.W.2d 344 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[156 MICHAPP 266] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Judy H. Hughes, Pros. Atty. and Raymond Howd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.
Stiles & Associates (by Charles R. Stiles), Lansing, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
Before HOOD, P.J., and HOLBROOK and PETERSON, * JJ.
Defendant appeals by right his jury conviction of larceny over $100, M.C.L. Sec. 750.356; M.S.A. Sec. 28.588. He was sentenced to forty to sixty months imprisonment.
The charge arose out of the theft of a boat motor from a boat owned by Edward LaCroix of Rhode Island. At the time of the theft, the boat and attached motor were located at Matteson Marina so that certain repairs could be made. The boat was at the marina by permission of LaCroix's son, Robert.
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in granting the prosecutor's motion to strike Edward LaCroix as a res gestae witness. Defendant contends that since LaCroix was the owner of the motor in question he could have testified as to consent. One element of larceny is that the taking must have been without the consent and against the will of the owner. People v. Wilbourne, 44 Mich.App. 376, 378, 205 N.W.2d 250 (1973). A res gestae witness is one who was witness to some event in the continuum of a criminal transaction and [156 MICHAPP 267] whose testimony will aid in developing a full disclosure of the facts surrounding the alleged commission of the charged offense. People v. Carter, 415 Mich. 558, 591, 330 N.W.2d 314 (1982). The decision of a trial court concerning the status of an alleged res gestae witness will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous. People v. Abrego, 72 Mich.App. 176, 179, 249 N.W.2d 345 (1976). A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court, based on the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Tuttle v. Dep't of State Highways, 397 Mich. 44, 46, 243 N.W.2d 244 (1976).
In the instant case, an evidentiary hearing was held on the issue at which Robert LaCroix testified that his father owned the boat and motor, that his father gave him and his brother permission to use the boat and motor, that he and his brother, in turn, could give permission for others to use the boat and motor, and that he authorized Kevin Matteson to take possession of the boat in order to have a cover made for it. The trial court found that, for purposes of the larceny statute, the term "owner" encompassed agents or employees of the owner and that Edward LaCroix was therefore not a res gestae witness. We agree with the trial court.
In People v. Jacks, 76 Mich. 218, 221, 42 N.W. 1134 (1889), the Supreme Court held that the fact of nonconsent to the taking may be proved by any other person having knowledge of the facts, as well as by the owner or the person having control of the property at the time. Further, CJI 22:1:02 defines owner for purposes of the larceny statute as any agent or employee of the owner who at the time of the alleged larceny had custody and possession of the property for the owner.
Because the "owner" at the time of the alleged [156 MICHAPP 268] theft was Kevin Matteson, as an agent of Robert LaCroix and Edward LaCroix, we conclude that Edward LaCroix was neither an eyewitness to an event in the continuum of the transaction nor a witness whose testimony would aid defendan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Maritime
...on other grounds 445 Mich. 918, 519 N.W.2d 899 (1994). One particularly thoughtful decision in this regard is People v. Hatch, 156 Mich.App. 265, 401 N.W.2d 344 (1986), in which an owner left his boat for repairs at a marina, from where it was later stolen. Id. at 266, 401 N.W.2d 344. At tr......
-
People v. Thorne
...property belonging to, or in the possession of, the casino would still be property "of another." See generally People v. Hatch , 156 Mich. App. 265, 267, 401 N.W.2d 344 (1986).3 Formatting altered.4 Defendant relies heavily on Morissette , wherein the Court determined that the defendant’s h......
-
People v. Pohl
...For purposes of larceny, the "owner" is the person who has rightful possession and control of the property. People v. Hatch, 156 Mich.App. 265, 267, 401 N.W.2d 344 (1986). Further, there is no right to enter into one's home, in violation of a restraining order or, by analogy, to remove one'......
-
People v. Safiedine
...in the continuum of a criminal transaction. See People v. Carter, 415 Mich. 558, 591, 330 N.W.2d 314 (1982); People v. Hatch, 156 Mich.App. 265, 266-267, 401 N.W.2d 344 (1986). No error requiring reversal Affirmed. * Meyer Warshawsky, 36th Judicial Circuit Judge, sitting on Court of Appeals......