People v. Mullins
| Decision Date | 09 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 28295 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steve A. MULLINS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Matuszak & Stillwagon by R. Michael Stillwagon, Ann Arbor, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William F. Delhey, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before RILEY, P. J., and GILLIS and MAHER, JJ.
Defendant was convicted by a jury, on January 21, 1975, of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit larceny therein, M.C.L.A. § 750.110; M.S.A. § 28.305. Following sentence, defendant appeals by right.
Defendant presents the following issues for our determination:
1) Was the evidence of heroin used by the defendant shortly after a breaking and entering properly admitted to establish a motive for the breaking and entering?
2) Was the large amount of money found by the police in the defendant's brother's apartment properly admitted into evidence?
The second issue is clear and simple. A question of fact was presented to the jury and they apparently determined that the brother had given permission to the police to enter his apartment and conduct a search. There was no error on this issue.
The first issue, however, requires reversal.
Generally, evidence which tends to show that a defendant has committed a crime other than that charged is inadmissible at trial. This is so because such evidence is usually collateral and prejudicial. People v. DerMartzex, 390 Mich. 410, 413, 213 N.W.2d 97 (1973). The admission of narcotic evidence in nondrug theft cases is prejudicial to such a degree that a reversal is mandated. It does not, under the facts of this case, establish defendant's motive, intent, scheme or plan and fall within the purview of M.C.L.A. § 768.27; M.S.A. § 28.1050.
For a detailed analysis of this problem, we refer the reader to People v. Lorenzo Williams, 63 Mich.App. 389, 234 N.W.2d 537 (1975).
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Paintman
...cases is the admission of narcotics evidence prejudicial to such a degree that reversal is necessarily mandated. People v. Mullins, 79 Mich.App. 515, 516, 261 N.W.2d 67 (1977). We must therefore determine whether the admission of the testimony in the instant case was harmless error beyond a......
-
People v. Walker, Docket No. 77-1350
...the defendant. M.C.L. § 768.27; M.S.A. § 28.1050; People v. Wilkins, 82 Mich.App. 260, 266 N.W.2d 781 (1978). Cf. People v. Mullins, 79 Mich.App. 515, 261 N.W.2d 67 (1977). However, this does not dispose of the case before The people did not introduce one shred of evidence in their case in ......
-
People v. Morgan, Docket No. 77-2958
...question defendant about his drug habits, 2 the narcotics paraphernalia found on him at the time of his arrest, People v. Mullins, 79 Mich.App. 515, 261 N.W.2d 67 (1977), People v. Williams, 63 Mich.App. 389, 234 N.W.2d 537 (1975), or ask that he waive his privilege regarding his notes or [......