People v. Scott, Docket No. 12768
| Decision Date | 18 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 12768,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 205 N.W.2d 291,44 Mich.App. 462 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Bruce A. Barton, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before QUINN, P.J., and R. B. Burns and BYRNS, * JJ.
Defendant appeals by right from his jury-based conviction of breaking and entering a business establishment with felonious intent. M.C.L.A. § 750.110; M.S.A. § 28.305. Two issues are presented for our consideration.
First, were the trial court's findings of fact at the Walker 1 hearing to determine the voluntariness of defendant's statement to the police clearly erroneous? The testimony was in conflict; the trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in the best position to judge their credibility. We have examined the entire record, People v. Stains, 41 Mich.App. 565, 576, 200 N.W.2d 473 (1972), and we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed. Cf. People v. Hubbard, 19 Mich.App. 407, 413, 172 N.W.2d 831 (1969). The trial court's findings are amply supported by the record, People v. Yacks, 38 Mich.App. 437, 440, 196 N.W.2d 827 (1972), and must therefore prevail. Moreover, the trial judge correctly excluded the testimony of Mr. Edwards; the proffered testimony was clearly hearsay (statement of Past state of mind), and not within the scope of any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. Cf. People v. Freeman, 32 Mich.App. 321, 323, 188 N.W.2d 200 (1971) (); McCormick, Evidence (2d ed.), §§ 294--296, pp. 694--704.
Second, did the trial court err in overruling defendant's objection to the admission of certain real evidence, seized pursuant to an allegedly invalid search warrant from the residence of defendant's girlfriend? The answer must be 'no.' Defendant, who, the record shows, lives elsewhere, has no standing to maintain this Fourth Amendment objection. People v. Joshua, 32 Mich.App. 581, 585, 189 N.W.2d 105 (1971).
Affirmed.
* CHESTER J. BYRNS, Berrien County Circuit Judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const.1963, art. 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Blassingame
...by the prosecution, that the defendant lacked standing to raise the warrantless search issue. See for example, People v. Scott, 44 Mich.App. 462, 205 N.W.2d 291 (1973); People v. Goeppner, 20 Mich.App. 425, 174 N.W.2d 143 (1969). There is also some indication that the defendant may have aba......
-
People v. Smith
...no abuse of discretion. We also note that defendant Holloway lacks standing to raise this question on appeal. People v. Scott, 44 Mich.App. 462, 464, 205 N.W.2d 291 (1973). He had no possessory interest or control in the Defendant Holloway argues that error occurred when the trial court adm......
-
People v. Coppernol
...does not lead us to a different conclusion. See People v. Robinson, 386 Mich. 551, 194 N.W.2d 709 (1972); and People v. Scott, 44 Mich.App. 462, 205 N.W.2d 291 (1973). We find no error in the admission of the statements made by Terry Defendant Randy Coppernol asserts that the officer's test......
-
People v. Maliskey
...determination of voluntariness, we must possess a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed". People v. Scott, 44 Mich.App. 462, 463, 205 N.W.2d 291, 292 (1973); People v. Hubbard, 19 Mich.App. 407, 413, 172 N.W.2d 831 (1969). In this case, we do not. We find a similar situ......