People v. Jenkins, Docket No. 6435
| Decision Date | 27 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 6435,1 |
| Citation | 23 Mich.App. 39,178 N.W.2d 103 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isadore JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Maurice Schwartz, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Robert A. Reuther, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and QUINN and V. J. BRENNAN, JJ.
On August 23, 1968, defendant was convicted by a jury of carrying a dangerous weapon in a motor vehicle, M.C.L.A. § 750.227 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.424). His allegations of error are without merit, and we affirm.
At trial, the arresting officer testified that while on duty on May 7, 1968, an unknown person informed him that a man had stolen some cigars from a drug store and was still sitting in an automobile outside the store. When the officer approached the automobile, defendant was behind the wheel. Beside him on the front seat, partially covered by newspapers, was a loaded rifle. Defendant was ordered out of the automobile and placed under arrest.
The rifle and some shells were introduced into evidence. Defendant contends that they were obtained as the result of an unreasonable search and seizure and were therefore inadmissible. This argument presupposes a search when, in fact, the officer perceived the presence of the rifle without a search.
'In Harris v. United States (1968), 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067, 1069, evidence plainly visible and not discovered as the result of a search was held admissible:
"It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence." People v. McDonald (1968), 13 Mich.App. 226, 234, 163 N.W.2d 796, 800.
Moreover, no objection to the introduction of the evidence was made at trial. See People v. Ferguson (1965), 376 Mich. 90, 135 N.W.2d 357; People v. Wilson (1967), 8 Mich.App. 651, 155 N.W.2d 210.
Defendant alleges that the court erred by accepting the verdict. The record reveals the following:
'(Whereupon the jury was duly sworn by the court clerk).'
As in People v. Fleish (1943), 306 Mich. 8, 9 N.W.2d 905, we believe it is sufficiently clear from the record that the jury found defendant guilty of the crime charged.
Defendant also contends that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Allen, Docket No. 10157
...it can reasonably be construed to mean first-degree murder. People v. Farrell (1906), 146 Mich. 264, 109 N.W. 440; People v. Jenkins (1970), 23 Mich.App. 39, 178 N.W.2d 103. Defendant's objection to the testimony of a ballistics expert will not be considered since it was not preserved for r......
-
People v. Bohm
...a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence." Also see People v. Jenkins, 23 Mich.App. 39, 178 N.W.2d 103 (1970). The open view rule is applicable to the facts in the instant case and we agree with the trial court's ruling that th......
-
People v. Measles
...questioning of the foreman simply clarified the verdict. People v. Fleish, 306 Mich. 8, 9 N.W.2d 905 (1943); People v. Jenkins, 23 Mich.App. 39, 178 N.W.2d 103 (1970). The jury was properly polled. We find no prejudicial error.' See also People v. Williams, 47 Mich.App. 392, 393--394, 209 N......
-
People v. Pruitt
...People v. Kuntze (1963), 371 Mich. 419, 124 N.W.2d 269; People v. Tetts (1967), 6 Mich.App. 254, 148 N.W.2d 877; People v. Jenkins (1970), 23 Mich.App. 39, 178 N.W.2d 103. This evidence 'was located not by a search but merely by the exercise of the officer's senses,' and thus there was no i......