People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 23 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 140.,140. |
| Citation | 208 N.W. 674,234 Mich. 503 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SMITH. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Recorder's Court of Detroit; John Faust, Judge.
Herbert Smith was convicted of receiving stolen property and he brings error. Reversed, and defendant discharged.
Argued before BIRD, C. J., and SHARPE, SNOW, STEERE, FELLOWS, WIEST, CLARK, and McDONALD, JJ.Bratton & Bratton, of Detroit, for appellant.
Andrew B. Daugherty, Atty. Gen., and Robert M. Toms, Pros. Atty., and Van H. Ring, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Detroit for the People.
The prosecuting attorney confesses error. In this he does well, for the error is patent. Defendant should have been discharged at the trial. Defendant was tried under an information charging him with larceny of an automobile, and with receiving the same automobile, knowing it had been stolen. He was acquitted of larceny and convicted of receiving stolen property.
The automobile was stolen April 6, 1925, in the city of Detroit, and was found in defendant's possession at Columbus, Ohio, on the 11th day of May, with numbers changed, except secret numbers of the manufacturer. Defendant was arrested in Ohio and brought to Detroit for trial. There was no evidence that defendant was in Detroit at or about the time of the larceny. Defendant was a witness, and testified he bought the automobile in Ohio, gave the name of the man from whom he purchased, and produced written evidence of the sale to him. Outside of showing a larceny and the finding of the stolen automobile in defendant's possession in the state of Ohio, over a month after the larceny, with numbers changed, the people offered no evidence. There was no showing, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that defendant received the property within the jurisdiction of the recorder's court. If the jury did not believe the testimony given by defendant, this was of no help to the prosecution. It is elementary, and the statute so provides, that one receiving stolen property, to be guilty of a crime, must have knowledge that it was stolen. This knowledge may be shown either by direct evidence or by facts reasonably imputing knowledge, but cannot rest upon mere suppositions.
We need not repeat what was said by this court in Durant v. People, 13 Mich. 351;People v. Mullis, 200 Mich. 505, 166 N. W. 859;People v. Tantenella, 212 Mich. 614, 180 N. W. 474.
The jury having acquitted defendant of larceny, and the automobile having been found in the state of Ohio,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wertheimer v. State, 25166.
...App. Div. 638, 219 N. Y. S. 73. Guilty knowledge that the property received is stolen cannot rest on mere supposition, People v. Smith (1926) 234 Mich. 503, 208 N. W. 674, and, where the state relies wholly on circumstantial evidence to show such guilty knowledge, the circumstances relied u......
-
Wertheimer And Goldberg v. State
... ... secreting, but it includes any acts or conduct which assist ... the thief in converting the property to his own use, ... People v. Reynolds [1852], 2 Mich. 422, or ... which may prevent or render more difficult its discovery by ... the owner. 2 Brill, Cyc. Crim. Law ... 638, 219 ... N.Y.S. 73. Guilty knowledge that the property received is ... stolen cannot rest on mere supposition, People v ... Smith (1926), 234 Mich. 503, 208 N.W. 674, and, ... where the State relies wholly on circumstantial evidence to ... show such guilty knowledge, the ... ...
-
People v. Petro
...him has a legal right to do so, shall be presumed to have received such property knowing it to have been stolen. Also see People v. Smith, 234 Mich. 503, 208 N.W. 674. C.L.1948, § 750.230, Stat.Ann. § 28.427, creates a presumption that one in possession of a pistol from which the mark of id......
- People v. Keur