People v. Sobczak, 87

• Decision Date: 28 December 1955
• Docket Number: No. 87,87
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry SOBCZAK, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 921

73 N.W.2d 921

344 Mich. 465

The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry SOBCZAK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 28, 1955.

George A. Kelly, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Thomas M. Kavanagh, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Gerald K. O'Brien, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, Samuel Brezner, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Angelo A. Pentolino, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for the people.

Before the Entire Bench.

SMITH, Justice.

This is a conspiracy case. The defendant, it was charged, was one of a large number who conspired to violate the gaming statutes of this State. C.L.1948, §§ 750.301-750.306, inclusive, and § 750.372, Stat.Ann. 1954 Rev. §§ 28.533-28.538, inclusive, and § 28.604. The organization was engaged in the 'numbers business.' It consisted of those who recorded the bets (the 'writers'), those who collected them on assigned routes ('pickup' men), and substation operators, to whom the pickup men turned over their collections, in 'packages,' as well as other functionaries. The details of the operation are not necessary to a decision on the questions raised. After these defendants had been 'observed by police officers for a period of over a year, from November 28, 1949, to December 8, 1950, * * * practically daily, * * * with the exception of Sunday,' search warrants were obtained, certain premises raided, gambling paraphernalia seized, and arrests made.

It was the theory of the State that defendant Sobczak was one of the co-owners of the business. He was arrested at his home, which was thereupon searched, but no gambling paraphernalia found. After trial by jury he was found guilty on 4 counts of the indictment and sentenced. He brings his case to this Court upon several claims of error, one being that the verdict of the jury was against 'the great weight of the evidence, there being in fact and law, no evidence to sustain the verdict.'

We have examined the voluminous record in detail and find that defendant's participation in this conspiracy can be summarized by stating that he was observed by police officers associating with one Albert Kuzera (another convicted defendant) and other named defendants, certainly on 7, and possibly on 3 additional occasions, in the above year of observation. We find little else. The testimony adduced consisted of observation made of defendant's movements and activities on described dates. Since it is all essentially similar, it will be described in detail only as to illustrative days. Thus we consider the events of May 16, 1950. On this date Albert Kuzera drove to the defendant's home and went inside. He remained 40 minutes. When he and defendant emerged, the latter had some papers in his hand. They were not concealed. Were they gambling paraphernalia of some kind? Were they bowling contracts? (Defendant's place of business was a rather large establishment, with bowling alleys, known as Falcon Bar and Recreation.) We are not informed. They drove to defendant's place of business, where defendant got out of the car and went inside, but without carrying the papers. He emerged shortly afterwards, at 12:19 p.m., and drove with Kuzera to 20150 Packard, the home of John Tomczak. (This house, when later searched, on November 16, disclosed coin wrappers, an adding machine, tapes therefor, a 'Stroh beer case containing $98.50 in pennies and $5.85 in silver,' and other articles.) At this address they parked, and walked to the rear of the house, out of sight of the watching officer. Their car was driven away after about three-quarters of an hour. Similar incidents on other days followed. Kuzera and defendant were occasionally together. Sometimes, either before meeting defendant, or afterwards, or even while together (as above related), Kuzera would visit homes at which the later searches revealed gambling paraphernalia. On one occasion (July 12, 1950) Kuzera took from such a home at 9439 Brombach, in Hamtramck, a package, about 8 X 8 in size, which he took to his car. Later in the day he picked up defendant, and drove him home. When defendant left the car he carried a package about the same size as the one Kuzera took from the Brombach address. It may have been the same package. What it contained we are not told. It may have been the fruits or instruments of crime. On the other hand, it may have been an abstract for a lot on Packard avenue, purchased by Edward Skorupski from Albert Kuzera, and concerning which defendant had tried to effect a sale for Kuzera. This is the only 'package' incident now presented for our consideration. In addition, there was testimony to the effect that on May 16, 1950, defendant entered the home of another codefendant Stanley Brynski, at 3401 Burns Avenue, whereupon the latter closed the shades of the Venetian blinds in the sunroom of his home.

Defendant also was observed talking, at the bar of Falcon Recreation, with Albert Kuzera, Tomczack, and Joseph Bosek, all codefendants, and all later convicted.

We will not summarize the rest of the testimony. It is all of a piece. What does the State claim as to it? That it presented enough evidence of conspiracy to go to the jury, and that the jury has resolved the...