People v. Stevens

• Decision Date: 01 July 1970
• Docket Number: Docket No. 7640,No. 1,1
• Citation: 181 N.W.2d 31,25 Mich.App. 181
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank Butler STEVENS, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 31

181 N.W.2d 31

25 Mich.App. 181

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank Butler STEVENS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 7640.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

July 1, 1970.

Released for Publication Nov. 25, 1970.

Kenneth A. Webb, Troy, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Angelo A. Pentolino, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and O'HARA, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was tried and convicted of receiving stolen property (a compressor) by a jury. ¹ During the trial, certain testimony of prior similar acts was admitted into evidence. This testimony was received after the assistant prosecuting attorney explained that it was offered under the provisions of C.L. 1948, § 768.27 (Stat.Ann. 1954 Rev. § 28.1050). ²

This testimony tended to prove that defendant had in his possession for sale a stolen compressor other than the one which is the subject of this offense. This testimony was admissible to show that defendant's having in his possession the stolen compressor was not a mistake or an innocent business transaction, but was a part of a plan or system of doing an act, or to show intent. People v. Nawrocki (1965), 376 Mich. 252, 136 N.W.2d 922, and People v. DiPietro (1921), 214 Mich. 507, 183 N.W. 22. The trial judge in this case did not give, nor was he requested to give, a special instruction as to the limited purpose for which this testimony was to be used, and no objection was made as provided in GCR 1963, 516.2.

Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in failing to immediately instruct the jury as to the limited purpose for which such evidence can be used, citing People v. Askar (1967), 8 Mich.App. 95, 101, 153 N.W.2d 888. The holding of People v. Askar, Supra, as to this issue is plain and unequivocal, i.e. that a limiting instruction must be given whether or not requested. We rule in accord with our understanding of the decision in the case of People v. Nawrocki, Supra, which our Court followed in People v. Anderson (1968), 13 Mich.App. 247, 163 N.W.2d 793, that such an instruction need not be given unless requested. The trial court in the absence of a request therefor or an objection to a failure to so instruct was not required to give the limiting instruction.

Defendant's other assertions of error are without merit and need not be discussed.

Affirmed.

* MICHAEL D. O'HARA, former Associate Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, appointed by the Supreme Court for the hearing month of June, 1970, pursuant to § 306 P.A.1964, No. 281.

1 M.C.L.A. § 750.535 (Stat.Ann.1970 Cum.Supp. § 28.803).

2...