People v. Hoefle, 141.

Decision Date16 June 1936
Docket NumberNo. 141.,141.
Citation267 N.W. 644,276 Mich. 428
CourtMichigan Supreme Court


John J. Hoefle was convicted of embezzlement and conversion, and he appeals.

Conviction set aside and new trial ordered.

Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit; W. McKay Skillman, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Wm. Henry Gallagher, of Detroit, for appellant.

David H. Crowley, Atty. Gen., and Edmund E. Shepherd and Chester P. O'Hara, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.

NORTH, Chief Justice.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of embezzling and converting to his own use $10,000 of the funds of Rands, Inc., a Michigan corporation, located in Detroit. This corporation was practically owned and wholly under the control of William C. Rands. The defense urged was that the accused took and used the $10,000 under the express authority of his employer, and that later defendant decided to keep the amount so taken in the belief that he was justly entitled thereto as part payment for money due him from his employer under a specific agreement, the details of which are unimportant for decision herein.

Appellant asserts as error that the trial judge failed to fully cover in his charge to the jury the defendant's theory of defense, notwithstanding an appropriate request to so charge was preferred. It was a part of defendant's claim and theory of defense that, prior to the time he countersigned and cashed the check for $10,000 and used the proceeds for his own stock transactions, Mr. Rands gave him permission to do so. Mr. Rands, the complaining witness, denied there was any such arrangement or permission. Clearly, if defendant had Rands' permission to use the funds alleged to have been embezzled, no crime was committed. A controlling issue of fact was thus presented. On this phase of the case defendant testified:

He (Mr. Rands) said, ‘You better go in and buy yourself some Hiram Walker stock if you need anything here help yourself out for your own account. Go ahead and use it.’ * * *

‘* * * he said to me, ‘If you need anything, go ahead and use it,’ and I said, ‘I have used a few hundred shares of stock,’ and he said, ‘All right, go ahead but don't carry the place away, * * *’ * * *

‘I proceeded to take the property of Rands, Inc., without telling anybody about it. I did it with Mr. Rands' advice.’

In the court's opinion, filed at the time he denied defendant's motion for a new trial, the following statement is made: ‘Rands took the witness stand first and testified very largely as to formal matters. He testified in general terms that he did not authorize use by defendant of the $10,000 which the defendant was charged with embezzling at any time or for any purpose. Afterwards Hoefle, the defendant, took the stand and with great detail narrated the time, place and substance of the agreement he claimed to have had with Rands, which authorized him to use the money as he did.’

The following request to charge was presented by defendant: ‘The testimony of Mr. Hoefle shows that at the time he drew and cashed this $10,000.00 check he did so under authority of William C. Rands, that he had no intention at that time to keep and not return the money, but did intend to return it; and if you find that to be the fact then you must find that the defendant is not guilty of the charge of embezzling and converting this money to his own use feloniously and fraudulently as charged.’

A careful reading of the court's charge discloses that this request was not given nor was it covered by any portion of the charge to the jury. Instead the charge, in so far as it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • People v. Jones
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1975
    ...v. Coston, 187 Mich. 538, 153 N.W. 831 (1951) and People v. Miller, 250 Mich. 72, 229 N.W. 475 (1930). The Court in People v. Hoefle, 276 Mich. 428, 267 N.W. 644 (1936) said that the trial court has a duty 'if proper request is made, to cover in the charge to the jury the theory upon which ......
  • People v. Thomas
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • February 25, 1972
    ...have not been covered by other instructions.' People v. Parsons (syllabus), 105 Mich. 177, 63 N.W. 69 (1895).' People v. Hoefle (1936), 276 Mich. 428, 431, 267 N.W. 644, 645.'In Sansone v. United States, Supra, 380 U.S. pp. 349--350, 85 S.Ct. p. 1009, the United States Supreme Court said:'(......
  • People v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • October 11, 1977
    ...instruction is requested and supported by competent evidence. People v. McIntosh, 400 Mich. 1, 252 N.W.2d 779 (1977); People v. Hoefle, 276 Mich. 428, 267 N.W. 644 (1936). See, People v. Jones, 395 Mich. 379, 236 N.W.2d 461 (1975). The question presently before us is whether a theory of the......
  • People v. Hansma
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • June 19, 1978
    ...349-350, 224 N.W.2d 867, 870 (1975), Cert. den., 422 U.S. 1044, 1048, 95 S.Ct. 2660, 45 L.Ed.2d 696, 701 (1975), People v. Hoefle, 276 Mich. 428, 431, 267 N.W. 644, 645 (1936). It is not disputed that proper request was made here. Therefore, we turn to consideration of whether the defense w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT