People v. Kennedy
| Decision Date | 24 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 6585,1 |
| Citation | 22 Mich.App. 524,177 N.W.2d 669 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse KENNEDY, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Robert A. Canner, 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., Thomas P. Smith, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and QUINN and V. J. BRENNAN, JJ.
On September 30, 1968, defendant Jesse Kennedy was found guilty by a jury of receiving money from the earnings of a prostitute without consideration. M.C.L.A. § 750.457 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.712.) The trial court denied his motion for a new trial, and he appeals.
The information charged defendant with 'knowingly accept(ing), receiv(ing), levy(ing) and appropriat(ing) certain money, of an undetermined amount, without consideration from the proceeds of the earnings of a certain female person engaged in prostitution, to-wit: * * *.' In its final instructions to the jury, the trial court recited the entire provision of M.C.L.A. § 750.457, of which the crime of receiving money from a prostitute is only a part:
Defendant contends that the reading of the statute in its entirety broadened the prosecution's base of proof and thereby permitted the jury to convict him of a crime with which he was not charged. His contention is without merit. It is true of course that the statute defines different ways the crime can be committed and that the defendant was required to defendant only on the one charged in the information. However, the court made it perfectly clear, both in reading the information and in explaining the elements of the crime charged, that the defendant could only be convicted of receiving money from a prostitute.
During the trial, a banderilla, or picador's lance, allegedly used by defendant to threaten the complainant, was left in the plain view of the jury without being formally offered into evidence. According to an arresting officer, the banderilla was found mounted on a wall of the defendant's house at the time of his arrest. Defendant contends his cnviction should be reversed in that (1) the banderilla was seized illegally and (2) displaying the banderilla without formally offering it into evidence denied him a fair trial. These...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bell
...acted upon false testimony of an undisclosed perjurer and convict." LoPresto, supra, at 328, 156 N.W.2d at 592. People v. Kennedy, 22 Mich.App. 524, 528, 177 N.W.2d 669 (1970), and People v. Boynton, 46 Mich.App. 748, 750, 208 N.W.2d 523 (1973), are distinguishable. In both cases our Court ......
-
People v. Nichols
...as reversibly erroneous. 1 See also People v. Cassiday, 4 Mich.App. 215, 216, 144 N.W.2d 676--677 (1966); People v. Kennedy, 22 Mich.App. 524, 526--527, 177 N.W.2d 669, 670 (1970); People v. Noyes, 328 Mich. 207, 210--211, 43 N.W.2d 331, 333 Any time the jury is instructed on a lesser inclu......
-
People v. Kozlow
...as at the time of the crime. Such an issue was never raised below, and therefore, it will not be heard on appeal. People v. Kennedy, 22 Mich.App. 524, 177 N.W.2d 524 (1970); People v. Smith, 20 Mich.App. 243, 174 N.W.2d 22 IV. Did the trial judge commit reversible error in his instruction t......
-
People v. Hill, Docket No. 10183
...(1967), 8 Mich.App. 651, 658, 155 N.W.2d 210; People v. Childers (1969), 20 Mich.App. 639, 645, 174 N.W.2d 565; People v. Kennedy (1970), 22 Mich.App. 524, 527, 177 N.W.2d 669; People v. Williams #1 (1970), 23 Mich.App. 129, 130, 131, 178 N.W.2d 128; and People v. Rowls (1970), 28 Mich.App.......