People v. Lenic
| Decision Date | 01 June 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 149.,149. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. LENIC et ux. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Allegan County; Fred T. Miles, Judge.
Anthony Lenic and his wife were convicted for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and they bring error.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench. Roman F. Glocheski, of Grand Rapids, for appellants.
Paul W. Voorhies, Atty. Gen., and Harry Pell, Pros. Atty., of Allegan, for the People.
Defendants, husband and wife, were convicted and sentenced for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and they bring error.
The evidence was obtained under a search warrant issued on an affidavit fair on its face. On search of the home of defendants, nearly eight gallons of moonshine whisky were found.
A motion to suppress the evidence so obtained was made, heard, and denied. This motion, hearing thereon, and formal denial thereof, are not in the record. Later present counsel for defendant was retained. He filed a second motion to suppress, on the same grounds, so far as here material, chief of which was that the affidavit for search warrant was false in fact. The second motion was noticed for hearing on April 9, 1930. Nothing was done relative to bringing it on for hearing. When the trial opened on June 16, 1930, it was first called to the attention of the trial judge. Hearing of it was not urged, but defendant's counsel said:
The court's attention was called to the fact that he had already heard and denied the first like motion to suppress, and he, accordingly and summarily, denied the second. Defendants raised the question of whether the affidavit was false in fact (People v. Burt, 236 Mich. 62, 210 N. W. 97) on motion to suppress, which was heard and denied. They, or either of them, were not entitled to a second hearing on the same matter. The point them is on the denial of the first motion. There being no record on this feature of the case, we cannot find error.
Concededly, a case for possession was made against Mrs. Lenic. It is urged there is no evidence that Mr. Lenic had knowledge that whisky was on his premises, and that the evidence is he did not have such knowledge, and, accordingly, he was not liable to prosecution, and a verdict should have been directed in his favor, citing People v. Burbank, 234 Mich. 600, 208 N. W. 687. In addition to the circumstances, there is direct evidence of statements and admissions by Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cash
...People v. Butler (1923), 221 Mich. 626, 192 N.W. 685. See also People v. Wilson (1928), 242 Mich. 532, 219 N.W. 641; People v. Lenic (1931), 255 Mich. 29, 237 N.W. 35; People v. Tamosaitis (1928), 244 Mich. 258, 221 N.W. 307. In People v. Kennedy, Supra, the failure of proof was apparently ......
-
People v. Sacorafas, Docket No. 29938
...order denying suppression was never appealed. Defendant was not entitled to a second hearing on the same matter, People v. Lenic, 255 Mich. 29, 237 N.W. 35 (1931). Sound policy dictates the rule; it is a necessary tool in controlling the length of litigation and assuring the termination the......
-
Kristoffy v. Iwanski
...255 Mich. 25237 N.W. 33KRISTOFFYv.IWANSKI et al. (PEOPLE'S WAYNE COUNTY BANK, Garnishee).No. 93.Supreme Court of Michigan.June 1, 1931 ... Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Clyde I. Webster, ... ...
-
People v. Kramer
...He is not entitled to a second hearing on the same matter, or to have the jury determine the admissibility of evidence. People v. Lenic, 255 Mich. 29, 237 N. W. 35;People v. Nutter, 255 Mich. 207, 237 N. W. 384. The court properly denied respondent's second motion, and the judgment is affir......