People v. Ockaski

• Decision Date: 20 March 1926
• Docket Number: No. 151.,151.
• Citation: 207 N.W. 867,234 Mich. 95
• Parties: PEOPLE v. OCKASKI.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

234 Mich. 95

207 N.W. 867

PEOPLE

v.OCKASKI.

No. 151.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 20, 1926.

Error to Superior Court of Grand Rapids; Leonard D. Verdier, Judge.

B. W. Ockaski was convicted of larceny from a store in the daytime, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before BIRD, C. J., and SHARPE, SNOW, STEERE, FELLOWS, WIEST, CLARK, and McDONALD, JJ. Michael Garvey, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

Earl W. Munshaw, Pros. Atty., of Grand Rapids, for the People.

SHARPE, J.

Defendant reviews his conviction on a charge of larceny from a store in the daytime by writ of error. The information also contained a count charging larceny of property of the value of more than $25. As this count was withdrawn from the consideration of the jury, the errors assigned which relate to it need not be considered.

1. It is urged that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, and that defendant's motion for a new trial should have been granted.

The owner of the store testified that clothing of the value of more than $100 was stolen from it on the day in question. Two young boys, Leo Morrison and Vance Rittenhouse, testified, when examined as witnesses, that the goods were stolen by them. The defendant had a paint shop nearby. Both boys testified that the defendant, on being informed of their purpose, at first said he would have nothing to do with it, but finally agreed that he would keep watch for them, and, ‘if any cops came, would call us back.’ Rittenhouse testified that it was agreed that defendant should have one of the stolen suits, and that defendant ‘wrote on a piece of paper the size he wanted,’ and that the goods, after they were taken, were placed in the cellar of defendant's place of business, and one of the suits left there for him.

There was also proof of an admission made by the defendant to one of the officers of his complicity in the affair. While defendant denied that he had anything to do with it, he admitted that he got the suit left in his basement. We cannot say that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.

2. Defendant's counsel objected to the testimony of the two boys as to the arrangements made with him concerning the larceny. Under our statute (3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 15757), any person who aids and abets in the commission of a felony, though not present, may be complained against as a principal. People v. Holdich, 194 N. W. 484, 224 Mich. 72;People v. Wycoff, 114 N. W. 242, 150 Mich. 449. An accomplice is a competent witness on behalf of the prosecution. People v. Wright, 38 Mich. 744, 31 Am. Rep. 331. Conviction may be had on his testimony, even though uncorroborated. People v. O'Brien, 26 N. W. 795, 60 Mich. 8; Tiffany's Criminal Law (4th Ed.) 587. The boys had made sworn confessions which implicated defendant....