People v. Ranney
| Decision Date | 23 February 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 99.,99. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. RANNEY et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Clyde Ranney and another were convicted of conspiring to set up, promote and manage a baseball pool, and they appeal.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Earl C. Pugsley, judge.
Before the Entire Bench.
Francis J. McDonald, of Detroit, for appellants.
Herbert J. Rushton, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., Thomas A. Kenney, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Chester P. O'Hara, Sp. Pros. Atty., of Detroit, for the People.
Defendants Clyde Ranney and James Dooley were convicted of conspiring with others to set up, promote and manage a baseball pool known as National Sports Junior within the county of Wayne and State of Michigan.
The record shows that Leo J. (Jack) Gagnon, Albert J. Schell and John Sidick, between March 15, 1935, and September 15, 1939, operated an illegal enterprise, being a lottery known as the National Sports Junior. Such a lottery is more commonly known as a baseball pool. Tickets were sold to various people by the operators of the lottery and prizes were given to the holders of certain lucky numbers. In 1939, between the opening of the baseball season in April and the closing of the pool in August, there were more than a million tickets sold, bringing in a revenue of more than a half million dollars. Approximately one half of this amount was paid out in prizes. The information named Duncan C. McCrea, prosecuting attorney of Wayne county, Harry Colburn, chief investigator, Fred W. Frahm, superintendent of police of the city of Detroit, Clyde Ranney and James Dooley, police detectives assigned to the special investigation squad, together with other police officers, as public officials, with eight other named defendants with the operation of the pool. The record shows that Leo J. Gagnon, one of the operators of the pool, had trouble with people who claimed to be prize winners and who presented fictitious tickets to support their claims to the prize money. He received assistance from defendants Ranney and Dooley in adjusting these claims.
In 1937, Gagnon met defendants Ranney and Dooley with other defendants in a beer garden and as a result of this meeting gave the men $40 or $50 and told them they could expect more money at a later date. He later paid money to both defendants, but Ranney collected most of the money. In 1938, Gagnon had trouble with four men at his home over prize money and he called Ranney, who came and searched the men for guns. In 1939, Gagnon again had trouble with a holder of a fake ticket. He again called defendant Ranney and the matter was adjusted. It later developed that Gagnon paid defendants a certain amount each week. Ranney admitted that he knew Gagnon was connected with a baseball pool. Ranney made no investigation of any kind to determine whether Gagnon was operating a baseball pool in the city of Detroit, but did report to the vice squad of the Detroit police department the operations of other baseball pools. After conviction, defendants made motions for new trials which were denied.
Defendants appeal and contend that the circuit court of Wayne county lacked jurisdiction to hear the cause; that the verdicts were contrary to the great weight of evidence; that the trial court erred in permitting the special prosecutor to cross examine defendant Dooley from a document which he neglected to identify; and that the court erred in permitting the special prosecutor to confront defendant Dooley with his grand jury testimony when the same was in harmony with his testimony at the trial.
It is admitted by defendants that the Wayne county circuit court had jurisdiction to try the conspiracy as charged in count one for the reason that tickets used in connection with the baseball pool were sold outside the city of Detroit as well as in the city of Detroit. But it is contended that as police officers of the city of Detroit, the failure, if any, of defendants to perform their official duties occurred in the city and they could not be charged with failure to enforce the laws outside the city. Therefore, the recorders court had sole jurisdiction of the crime charged in count eight.
The record discloses that this so-called baseball pool operated in all parts of Wayne county during the period covered by the information.
In People v. Pitcher, 15 Mich. 397, we said: ‘The general rule is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Meredith, Docket Nos. 173161
...a conspiracy case may be had in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy took place. People v. Ranney, 304 Mich. 315, 319-320, 8 N.W.2d 80 (1943). The prosecutor claims that an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred in Oakland County because Lavinia ......
-
People v. Schram, 73
...People v. Pettijohn (1938), 283 Mich. 108, 277 N.W. 193, People v. Moore (1943), 306 Mich. 29, 10 N.W.2d 296, People v. Ranney (1943), 304 Mich. 315, page 320, 8 N.W.2d 80, page 81: '* * * The weight to be given to the testimony produced by the people was for the sole consideration of the j......
-
People v. Watson, 83.
...defendants could have been tried by either the recorder's court for the city of Detroit or the Wayne circuit court.’ In People v. Ranney, 304 Mich. 315, 8 N.W.2d 80, 81, the defendant was convicted of the crime of conspiracy to obstruct justice in Wayne county. We there said: ‘In the case a......
-
People v. Jordan
...great weight of the evidence. There is evidence, if believed by the jury, to warrant a conviction in this case.' People v. Ranney (1943), 304 Mich. 315, 320, 8 N.W.2d 80, 81. See, also, People v. Schram (1965), 1 Mich.App. 279, 136 N.W.2d Defendant's second issue is grounded on the prosecut......