People v. Streetman
| Decision Date | 24 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 18106,No. 3,3 |
| Citation | 59 Mich.App. 49,228 N.W.2d 539 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Gene STREETMAN, 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., Michael E. Godge, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and J. H. BILLIS and HOLBROOK, JJ.
Defendant was charged with embezzlement in violation of M.C.L.A. § 750.174; M.S.A. § 28.371. He had a jury trial in the circuit court for Cass County, was found guilty and sentenced to serve two to ten years. He appeals as of right.
Defendant raises six issues on appeal and we deem it necessary to consider only two of these, the others not being of substance.
At trial, Francis McClane, former president of Ledgerwood Mobile Homes, Inc., of Edwardsburg, Michigan, testified that he hired defendant on June 29, 1972 to haul a mobile home from the Ledgerwood plant to a buyer in Butte, Montana. McClane said that although the buyer accepted delivery of the mobile home on July 4, 1972 and paid defendant $3.645.70 cash therefor, defendant returned from Montana on or about July 7, 1972 without the cash or defendant's truck. Defendant told McClane that the money and defendant's truck had burned up in a fire on the highway near Dell, Montana. McClane testified that defendant had no permission to retain the money in question.
Although defendant told several of the witnesses about the fire, there was no independent evidence that it ever occurred. Further, two prosecution witnesses--a State Police Fire Marshal and a service mechanic--each stated that there was no evidenne of fire damage after having examined defendant's truck.
Defendant took the stand and testified in his own behalf, recounting how the money, which was in a cardboard suitcase in the cab of the truck, burned up when the truck caught fire. During his cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the defendant if he had ever sold a mobile home to a Beatrice Price in Florida. Defendant denied doing so but acknowledged that he had heard of her and that he was presently paying her for a trailer which she never received.
Defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in permitting the prosecutor to question the defendant about this prior misconduct, and to refer to it in his closing argument.
It is the general rule that evidence tending to show the commission of other criminal offenses by the defendant is inadmissible on the issue of his guilt or innocence of the offense charged. People v. Der Martzex, 390 Mich. 410, 213 N.W.2d 97 (1973).
There is a statutory exception to this rule, however. Under this exception, evidence of independent acts may be admitted, not as substantive, proof of guilt, but for the purpose of showing 1) motive, 2) intent, 3) absence of mistake or accident, or 4) a scheme, plan or system in doing an act. M.C.L.A. § 768.27; M.S.A. § 28.1050.
In this case defendant testified that the money in question was destroyed in an accidental fire. Thus, the use of evidence of a prior similar act was particularly appropriate to support the conclusion that the defendant did indeed have the intent to embezzle the funds in question and that there had been no accidental truck fire.
Defendant contends that the act in question was not sufficiently similar to come under the statutory exception. However, the statute does not require identical acts, only 'like acts'. M.C.L.A. § 768.27; M.S.A. § 28.1050. In People v. Crawford, 218 Mich. 125, 187 N.W. 522 (1922), for example, the cashier of a bank was prosecuted for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...Dean, 253 Mich. 434, 235 N.W. 211 (1931). While proof of identical acts is not required to make this connection, People v. Streetman, 59 Mich.App. 49, 228 N.W.2d 539 (1975), Lv. den., 394 Mich. 798 (1975), it is nevertheless insufficient[87 MICHAPP 24] to show merely that a defendant had co......
-
People v. Stander
...defendant's claim of innocent participation. People v. Johnson, 62 Mich.App. 63, 73, 233 N.W.2d 188 (1975); cf. People v. Streetman, 59 Mich.App. 49, 52, 228 N.W.2d 539 (1975). It was nevertheless the duty of the trial judge to determine if the prejudicial impact of the evidence would outwe......
-
People v. Shepherd
...trial judge is not required to give limiting or cautionary instructions absent a request or a proper objection, People v. Streetman, 59 Mich.App. 49, 228 N.W.2d 539 (1975); People v. Chism, 390 Mich. 104, 211 N.W.2d 193 (1973). While prejudice to the absent defendant himself is presumed, Pe......
-
People v. Spillman
...rob complainant on an earlier occasion 'tends to show' that he had a similar intent on the night in question. See People v. Streetman, 59 Mich.App. 49, 228 N.W.2d 539 (1975), compare People v. Locke, 275 Mich. 333, 266 N.W. 370 However, that the prior act tends to prove intent satisfies onl......