People v. Stuart
| Decision Date | 06 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 143.,143. |
| Citation | 274 Mich. 246,264 N.W. 359 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. STUART. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Don W. Stuart was convicted on an information charging embezzlement and larceny, and he appeals.
Judgment and sentence vacated, and a new trial granted.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clinton County; Kelly S. Searl, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench, except TOY, J.
George E. Nichols, of Ionia, for appellant.
Harry S. Toy, Atty. Gen. (Edmund E. Shepherd, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), and Charles Austin, Pros. Atty., and George G. Hunter, Sp. Asst. Pros. Atty., both of St. Johns, for the People.
Don W. Stuart was tried before the circuit judge without a jury under an information which in separate counts charged defendant with having committed the crime of embezzlement contrary to the provisions of section 174 of Act No. 328, Pub.Acts 1931 (Michigan Penal Code), and also of having committed larceny in violation of section 362 of the same act. At the conclusion of the testimony the circuit judge stated in an opinion rendered by him: ‘The verdict is that the respondent is guilty as charged.’ Thereupon defendant was placed on probation for two years or until the further order of the court. Defendant has appealed.
Appellant complains that, notwithstanding he was charged with two separate and distinct offenses, the record does not disclose of which offense he was convicted. Embezzlement (section 174) is punishable by a maximum commitment of ten years; but larceny by conversion (section 362) carries a maximum commitment of only five years. The essential elements of these two statutory offenses are different. It is a matter of right that defendant should have knowledge and have a proper record made of the exact offense of which he was convicted. Under the probationary sentence imposed, defendant would be held constructively in the custody of the court for a period of two years without having been convicted of any specific offense. The general determination of the trial court that defendant was ‘guilty as charged’ was no more than a general verdict. ‘A general verdict of guilty, without specifying the count or offense on which it is founded, is invalid where there are several counts, each of which charges a separate and distinct offense, of a nature and character radically different from that in the other counts, and having no necessary connection* * *.’ 16 C.J. 1105. See, also, numerous cases cited in notes. While some authority...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wilkins
...(1938); People v. Kennan, 275 Mich. 452, 266 N.W. 468 (1936); People v. Hopper, 274 Mich. 418, 264 N.W. 849 (1936), People v. Stuart, 274 Mich. 246, 264 N.W. 359 (1936); People v. Allan, 263 Mich. 182, 248 N.W. 589 (1933); People v. Kolowich, 262 Mich. 137, 247 N.W. 133 (1933); People v. Di......
-
People v. Page
...indicating that larceny is not a lesser included offense. People v. Huffman, 315 Mich. 134, 23 N.W.2d 236 (1946), People v. Stuart, 274 Mich. 246, 264 N.W. 359 (1936). The Supreme Court, however, reversed Keatts and reinstated the conviction as found by the trial court. 396 Mich. 803, 237 N......
-
People v. Ormsby
...the offense of which the defendant is found guilty, and a general verdict of guilty is void and requires a new trial.’ In People v. Stuart, 274 Mich. 246, 264 N.W. 359, a general verdict of guilty was entered on an indictment charging distinct and separate offenses in separate counts. In re......
-
People v. Measles
...is a matter of right that a defendant have a proper record made of the exact offense of which he has been convicted. People v. Stuart, 274 Mich. 246, 264 N.W. 359 (1936). In circumstances where the foreman's statement of the jury's decision is not clear, the trial court has an obligation to......