People v. Ragland, Docket No. 9380

• Decision Date: 25 June 1971
• Docket Number: Docket No. 9380,No. 1,1
• Citation: 192 N.W.2d 5,34 Mich. App. 624
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Wesley RAGLAND, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 5

192 N.W.2d 5

34 Mich.App. 624

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.John Wesley RAGLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 9380.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

June 25, 1971.

Released for Publication Dec. 8, 1971.

Richard M. Lustig, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol.Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros.Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale Chief, Appellate Div., Carolyn H. Florescu, Asst. Pros.Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and GILLIS and T. M. BURNS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty of robbery armed ¹ and appeals, asserting that the prosecution failed to establish the element of asportation.

The record shows that defendant, at gunpoint, ordered the two complaining witnesses to enter their automobile and drive to a secluded area.Defendant then ordered the complainants to place their money in an empty cigarette package.

One of the complaining witnesses testified that the cigarette package was then handed to the defendant who placed it on the dashboard.At this point the police observed defendant's activities and apprehended him before he could leave the automobile.

The element of asportation is established by any movement of the goods.²The movement of the goods may be by the defendant or by an innocent agent at the defendant's direction.³

Here there was direct evidence to establish that the defendant himself took the cigarette package and placed it on the dashboard.This movement of the money is sufficient to establish the element of asportation.

The element of asportation would also be established if the cigarette package was placed on the dashboard by one of the complaining witnesses at the defendant's direction.Accordingly, we hold that the movement of the cigarette package to the dashboard, whether by the defendant or at his direction, supplied the necessary asportation.

Affirmed.

1M.C.L.A. § 750.529(Stat.Ann.1971 Cum.Supp. § 28.797).

2SeePeople v. Anderson(1967), 7 Mich.App. 513, 152 N.W.2d 40.

3See Anno: What amounts to asportation which will support a charge of larceny, 19 A.L.R. 724, 725;144 A.L.R. 1383, 1384.