People v. Keshishian, Docket No. 12733

• Decision Date: 21 February 1973
• Docket Number: Docket No. 12733,No. 2,2
• Citation: 205 N.W.2d 818,45 Mich.App. 51
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mike KESHISHIAN, a/k/a Mike Keshian, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 818

205 N.W.2d 818

45 Mich.App. 51

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mike KESHISHIAN, a/k/a Mike Keshian, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 12733.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

Feb. 21, 1973.

Released for Publication April 13, 1973.

Gilbert E. Metry, Metry, Metry, Sanom, Ashare & Goldman, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., George N. Parris, Pros. Atty., Thaddeus F. Hamera, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Fred S. Raznick, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BRONSON, P.J., and McGREGOR and DANHOF, JJ.

DANHOF, Judge.

Defendant was tried and convicted by a jury of receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property. M.C.L.A. § 750.535; M.S.A. § 28.803. He appeals and we affirm.

Defendant claims that at the preliminary hearing there was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause that the defendant had knowledge that the Lincoln automobile was stolen. Defendant did not file a motion to quash the information prior to arraignment on the information, or prior to the impaneling of a jury in the Circuit Court. Thus, this matter has not been preserved for appellate review. People v. Dobine, 371 Mich. 593, 124 N.W.2d 795 (1963), People v. Davis, 171 Mich. 241, 137 N.W. 61 (1912), Barnard v. Judge of Superior Court of Grand Rapids, 199 Mich. 227, 165 N.W. 833 (1917).

The only meritorious issue is whether defendant's motion for directed verdict made at the close of the prosecution's proofs should have been granted.

The elements of this offense are as follows: (1) The property was stolen, (2) The receiving of the property by the defendant, (3) The identity of the goods as those previously stolen, (1) The value of the property, and (5) The guilty knowledge of the defendant. People v. Tantenella, 212 Mich. 614, 180 N.W. 474 (1920), People v. Martinovich, 18 Mich.App. 253, 170 N.W.2d 899 (1969). Defendant concedes the existence of facts to prove items (1) through (4) but claims the evidence is insufficient to prove item (5).

In People v. White, 22 Mich.App. 65, 68, 176 N.W.2d 723, 724 (1970) this Court said:

'In People v. Tantenella, (supra), the court held taht the evidence of the accused's guilty knowledge at the time he received the stolen property, or aided in its concealment, is generally to be collected from all the various circumstances of the case.'

In People v. Tantenella, Supra, 212 Mich. p. 621, 180 N.W. p. 476, the Supreme Court said:

'Guilty knowledge means not only actual knowledge, but constructive knowledge, through notice of facts and circumstances from which guilty knowledge may fairly be inferred.'

The question to be decided on a motion for directed verdict of not guilty is whether there is evidence from which the jury was reasonably infer all the elements of the crime charged. People v. Compton, 23...