People v. Meadows, Docket Nos. 7632
| Decision Date | 30 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | 8892,No. 1,Docket Nos. 7632,1 |
| Citation | 26 Mich.App. 675,182 N.W.2d 721 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Wilbur MEADOWS III, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael J. COLLERAN, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Carl M. Riseman, Riseman, Lemke & Piotrowski, Detroit, for meadows.
Michael J. Colleran, in pro. per.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Gerard A. Poehlman, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before McGREGOR, P.J., and GILLIS and O'HARA *, JJ.
On October 8, 1968, defendants Charles Meadows and Michael Colleran were tried by a jury and convicted of carrying an unlicensed pistol in an automobile, M.C.L.A. § 750.227 (Stat.Ann.1962, Rev. § 28.424). On appeal, defendants allege an illegal search and seizure, insufficient evidence to support the conviction, and trial error.
The testimony at trial showed that defendant Meadows was driving a black 1965 Ford Station Wagon in the early morning of June 28, 1968. Co-defendant Colleran was a passenger. A police officer testified that he had been instructed to be on the alert for such a vehicle, bearing two men fitting the description of the defendants. Except for the fact that the car in question had Michigan license plates, whereas the wanted car was said to have had Ohio license plates, the car and its occupants matched the description of the 'radio alert'.
The officer followed the car, pulled along side, and shined a light on its occupants. The car then sped off, struck a guardrail, and, as the car rolled forward, the defendants ran away. Police officers gave chase and arrested them immediately. A search of defendant Meadows disclosed 15 rounds of .38 caliber ammunition.
After Meadows and Colleran were taken away, one police officer entered the car to drive it to the police station. In so doing, he found a loaded .38 caliber pistol struck in the armrest on the passenger side of the car. The officer's testimony was to the effect that the pistol was not concealed from view.
The defendants' claim that the pistol was illegally seized is without merit. In Harris v. United States (1968), 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 993, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067, 1069, the United States Supreme Court noted
'It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.'
This is the so-called 'plain view doctrine' which has been repeatedly applied by Michigan Courts. People v. Tetts (1967), 6 Mich.App. 254, 148 N.W.2d 877; People v. McDonald (1968), 13 Mich.App. 226, 163 N.W.2d 796; People v. Tisi (1969), 16 Mich.App. 316, 167 N.W.2d 795. There was no error in admitting the pistol in evidence.
There was sufficient evidence introduced at trial to support the verdicts. People v. Smith (1970), 21 Mich.App. 717, 176 N.W.2d 430. The statute dealt with does not require that the arrest be simultaneous with the operation of the vehicle or the carrying of the weapon. People v. Moceri (1940), 294 Mich. 483, 293 N.W. 727. The fact that defendant Meadows was carrying 15 rounds of .38 caliber ammunition supports an inference that he had knowledge of the presence of the pistol.
Defendants' request that the trial judge charge the jury that in order to support the conviction the defendants must have been found to have exercised some control or possession over the weapon was granted in accordance with People v. Smith, Supra. The trial judge properly declined to instruct the jury relative to the application of M.C.L.A. § 750.231a (Stat.Ann.1970 Cum.Supp. § 28.428(1)), excluding from this offense a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bennett
...trial judge properly admitted the shotgun into evidence. People v. Hopper, 21 Mich.App. 276, 175 N.W.2d 889 (1970); People v. Meadows, 26 Mich.App. 675, 182 N.W.2d 721 (1970). III Was defendant denied his constitutional right of confrontation when an alleged Res gestae witness was not produ......
-
People v. Smith
...the gaming laws). See, also, People v. Davenport, 39 Mich.App. 252, 257, 197 N.W.2d 521, 523 (1972).5 See People v. Meadows, 26 Mich.App. 675, 678, 182 N.W.2d 721, 722 (1970).6 In People v. Sims, 23 Mich.App. 194, 178 N.W.2d 667 (1970), each of the three men in the automobile was seated nex......
-
People v. Smith
...in evidence.' (Emphasis supplied.) Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968); People v. Meadows, 26 Mich.App. 675, 182 N.W.2d 721 (1970); People v. Tisi, 384 Mich. 214, 180 N.W.2d 801 (1970); People v. Walker, 385 Mich. 565, 189 N.W.2d 234 (1971). We cannot......
-
People v. Stone
..."carrying" is a separate element in People v. Threlkeld, 47 Mich.App. 691, 697, 209 N.W.2d 852 (1973), and in People v. Meadows, 26 Mich.App. 675, 678, 182 N.W.2d 721 (1970). Similarly, "carrying" was recognized as a distinct element of the crime in People v. Blalock, 44 Mich.App. 336, 337,......