People v. Simon, Docket No. 6779
| Decision Date | 30 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 6779,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 178 N.W.2d 106,23 Mich.App. 64 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert E. SIMON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
I. Goodman Cohen, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., George N. Parris, Pros. Atty., Thaddeus F. Hamera, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Stephen F. Osinski, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and V. J. BRENNAN and QUINN, JJ.
October 1, 1968, defendant was tried by a jury and convicted of receiving stolen property of the value of over $100. C.L.S.1961, § 750.535 (Stat.Ann.1970 Cum.Supp. § 28.803). He was sentenced and he appeals.
Defendant first contends it was reversible error to deny his motion to quash the information. The motion to quash was based on defendant's theory that the preliminary examination transcript contained no evidence of value at the time of the offense.
April 4, 1968, an Apache camping trailer was stolen. That same day defendant was caught hauling the trailer behind his automobile. He admitted he had stolen it. A qualified appraiser viewed the trailer May 21, 1968. His testimony at preliminary examination was that the trailer was worth $200 and that he had observed no new conditions or additions to the trailer when he apprised it. A police officer testified that the trailer was in police custody from April 4, 1968 to May 21, 1968.
On a motion to quash an information, a trial court must find that on the record, it was an abuse of discretion for the magistrate to have bound th edefendant over for trial. People v. Medley (1954), 339 Mich. 486, 64 N.W.2d 708. The trial court was unable to make such a finding on the record before him, nor can we.
In the prosecuting attorney's opening statement, closing argument and also during some testimony, reference was made to the fact that defendant admitted stealing the trailer. Defendant now claims this was improper proof of a distinct offense and was reversibly erroneous.
An element of the offense charged is that defendant knew that the property received was stolen. Under C.L.1948, § 768.27 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.1050), the proof and argument were proper.
Defendant has abandoned the other two issues raised on appeal.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Melvin, Docket No. 23081
...v. Campbell, 61 Mich.App. 600, 604, 233 N.W.2d 103 (1975), People v. Wood, 44 Mich.App. 99, 205 N.W.2d 66 (1972), People v. Simon, 23 Mich.App. 64, 178 N.W.2d 106 (1970). The testimony was relevant to establish the 'malice aforethought' even if not premeditation and deliberation. Defendant ......
-
People v. Randall, Docket Nos. 12511--12514
...that person is the thief. The thief may be found guilty under the receiving and concealing stolen property statute. People v. Simon, 23 Mich.App. 64, 178 N.W.2d 106 (1970). It is clear that someone stole the property and removed it from the owner's observation knowing that he was doing so. ......
-
People v. Kyllonen
...$100.00."2 66 Mich.App. 467, 239 N.W.2d 410 (1976).3 See People v. Allen, 252 Mich. 553, 233 N.W. 412 (1930).4 People v. Simon, 23 Mich.App. 64, 178 N.W.2d 106 (1970) and People v. Randall, 42 Mich.App. 187, 201 N.W.2d 292 (1972).5 No. 23564 (February 17, 1976).6 See M.C.L.A. § 750.356; M.S......
-
People v. Kyllonen
...M.C.L.A. § 750.535; M.S.A. § 28.803. See also People v. Randall, 42 Mich.App. 187, 193, 201 N.W.2d 292 (1972), and People v. Simon, 23 Mich.App. 64, 178 N.W.2d 106 (1970). The next issue raised is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a directed In reviewing th......