People v. Kolodzieski, 156.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 156.,156. |
| Citation | 212 N.W. 958,237 Mich. 654 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. KOLODZIESKI. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Recorder's Court of Detroit; Christopher E. Stein, Judge.
Edward Kolodzieski was convicted of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon, with intent, if resisted, to kill or maim, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Argued before SHARPE, C. J., and BIRD, SNOW, STEERE, FFLLOWS, WIEST, CLARK, and McDONALD, JJ. Davidow & Davidow, of Detroit, for appellant.
William W. Potter, Atty. Gen., and Robert M. Toms, Pros. Atty., and Frank B. Ferguson, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Detroit, for the People.
Defendant was convicted on a charge of robbery, ‘being armed with a dangerous weapon, with intent, if resisted, to kill or main.’ 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 15206.
From the testimony it appears that two men entered a butcher shop owned by Joseph Samulowicz in the city of Detroit on the 2d of July, 1925, armed with revolvers, compelled the owner and his helper to lie upon the floor, took the money ($41.96) in the cash register therefrom, and then locked the men in the ice box. Both the owner and his helper positively identified the defendant as one of these men. The defense was an alibi.
1. There was testimony to sustain the verdict. While several witnesses (relatives of defendant) testified that he was at another place when the crime was committed, we cannot say that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.
2. Four persons, whose names appeared on the information as witnesses, were not present at the trial or called as witnesses. The officer in charge of the case testified that he had been unable to locate two of them. The others were police officers in the city. Defendant's counsel made no request that they should be called, and, in view of the nature of the charge and the defense offered, it is apparent that no prejudice resulted from their failure to appear. People v. Higgins, 127 Mich. 291, 86 N. W. 812.
3. Error is assigned on the instruction of the court that the jury could not convict of larceny from the person. This is a lesser offense, included in the charge of robbery. People v. Covelesky, 217 Mich. 90, 185 N. W. 770. There was no evidence tending to show the commission of the lesser offense. The evidence is undisputed that the men who took the money were armed with a dangerous weapon, and that their threats clearly indicated an intent to kill or main, if resisted. The defense was an alibi. The only question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cornell
...prove the greater...." Id., at 711, 199 N.W.2d 458. See also, People v. Netzel, 295 Mich. 353, 294 N.W. 708 (1940); People v. Kolodzieski, 237 Mich. 654, 212 N.W. 958 (1927). Additionally, Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, 85 S.Ct. 1004, 13 L.Ed.2d 882 (1965), is instructive on this p......
-
People v. Clemons
...the trial court's refusal to instruct on specifically requested lesser offenses, even though applicable precedent, People v. Kolodzieski, 237 Mich. 654, 212 N.W. 958 (1927), would permit the refusal. Despite my reluctance to apply Lovett to the instant case, I cannot accept the majority's r......
-
People v. LaTeur
...goods were armed with a dangerous weapon, thus the sole question was whether defendants were the armed robbers. See People v. Kolodzieski, 237 Mich. 654, 212 N.W. 958 (1927). 2. Larceny is one of the essential elements of an armed robbery charge. 4 People v. Needham, 8 Mich.App. 679, 155 N.......
-
People v. Hubbard, 4
...(1899); People v. Onesto, 203 Mich. 490, 170 N.W. 38 (1918); People v. Utter, 217 Mich. 74, 185 N.W. 830 (1921); People v. Kolodzieski, 237 Mich. 654, 212 N.W. 958 (1927); People v. Netzel, 295 Mich. 353, 294 N.W. 708 In the instant case if the complainant is believed, the defendant was gui......