People v. Manning
| Decision Date | 25 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 11453,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 197 N.W.2d 152,38 Mich.App. 662 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Carver MANNING, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Peter J. Donlin, Pontiac, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Thomas G. Plunkett, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DANHOF, P.J., and T. M. BURNS and VanVALKENBURG, * JJ.
After a non-jury trial the defendant was convicted of larceny over $100. M.C.L.A. § 750.356; M.S.A. § 28.588. He now appeals and we affirm.
The defendant's first contention is that GCR 1963, 517.1, which requires the trial court to make findings of fact in cases heard without a jury, applies to criminal cases and that a reversal is required because of the failure of the trial court to make specific findings of fact.
The question of whether rule 517.1 applies to criminal cases has not been definitively decided. This Court has held that the rule does apply to criminal cases. People v. Beaudoin, 7 Mich.App. 461, 151 N.W.2d 868 (1967); People v. Scott, 21 Mich.App. 217, 175 N.W.2d 312 (1970). In the case of People v. Thomas, 384 Mich. 804 (1971), the Supreme Court entered the following order:
'Leave to appeal granted February 9, 1971, and the Court of Appeals is summarily affirmed for the reason that GCR 1963, 517.1 does not apply to criminal cases.'
Subsequently, in People v. Thomas, 384 Mich. 828 (1971), the following order was entered:
'Motion for reconsideration granted, order of February 9, 1971, affirming the Court of Appeals is hereby vacated, and application for leave to appeal granted April 15, 1971.'
In this case we find it unnecessary to determine whether or not the rule applies to criminal cases. Assuming for purposes of decision that the rule does apply we believe that the judgment can be affirmed on the authority of People v. Green, 32 Mich.App. 482, 189 N.W.2d 122 (1971). In Green the Court explained the holdings of Beaudoin and Scott, supra, stating at p. 485, 189 N.W.2d at p. 123:
'Each tacitly holds, therefore, that a general verdict of guilty by the court may be affirmed where the elements of the offense are uncomplicated, there is some evidence tending to prove each element of the offense, and where it appears that the trial court must have found such evidence credible.'
This case is controlled by Green. The elements of larceny are not unduly complicated. There was evidence that tended to prove each element of the offense and the trial judge expressly indicated that he found the prosecution's evidence credible.
The defendant's second contention is that the record shows that the victim voluntarily relinquished possession of the stolen property and thus there was a failure of proof on one of the elements of the offense. The defendant argues that because of this, if an offense was proven, it was either larceny by trick or larceny by conversion, and thus, a conviction of larceny over $100 was improper. This issue was raised in the trial court and the trial judge ruled as follows:
'If the event took place, it would be very similar to somebody lifting something of yours in your presence and then leaving with it, and I find it is Larceny.'
It is true, as the defendant contends, that to constitute larceny the taking must be without the consent and against the will of the owner. People v. Anderson, 7 Mich.App. 513, 152 N.W.2d 40 (1967). However, an examination of the record reveals that this element was proven and that the ruling of the trial court was correct.
In order to discuss this issue we must briefly state the relevant facts. The property involved in this case is a ring. The owner of the ring, one Robinson, had discussed selling it to the defendant while they were both present at a skating rink. It appears that the defendant indicated that he would like to purchase it. Robinson then left the skating rink but returned and asked the defendant for a ride home, explaining that he had missed his ride. The defendant, Robinson, and one Brown then drove to Robinson's home. After Robinson had gotten out of the car the defendant asked him to show the ring to Brown. Robinson removed the ring from his finger and handed it to Brown. Brown held the ring for a short time and then the defendant reached over and took the ring from him. The defendant then started to drive his car away. Robinson shouted to him to stop and return the ring. The defendant then said something to the effect that he would settle up with Robinson later...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Maritime
...for purposes of larceny offenses. People v. Gill, 12 Mich.App. 383, 386, 163 N.W.2d 14 (1968). See also People v. Manning, 38 Mich.App. 662, 666–667, 197 N.W.2d 152 (1972) (noting that possession requires the defendant to have been given dominion over the property, not simply custody). Turn......
- People v. White
-
THE BROWN CORPORATION OF IONIA, INC. v. Commissioner
...offense to have occurred under Michigan law, there must have been a criminal and wrongful taking of property. In People v. Manning, 38 Mich. App. 662, 197 N.W. 2d 152 (1972), the court stated that to constitute the offense of larceny, the taking must be without the consent and against the w......
-
People v. Matthews
...trials'). Perhaps the most accurate assessment with respect to the question at the time was provided in People v. Manning, 38 Mich.App. 662, 664, 167 N.W.2d 152, 153 (1972): 'The question of whether rule 517.1 applies to criminal cases has not been definitively When, in the following year, ......