People v. Talley, Docket Nos. 21803
| Decision Date | 09 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 21803,21425 and 21543 |
| Citation | 67 Mich.App. 239,240 N.W.2d 496 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Duane Earl TALLEY, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James CUNNINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Russell COTTON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Neal Bush, Detroit, for Talley.
Juste A. Rosati, Inkster, for Cunningham.
Ostrowski, Wilson, Belanger & Boman by John L. Belanger, Detroit, for Cotton.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Patricia J. Boyle, Appellate Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Asst. Pros. Atty. (in 21803), Robert M. Morgan, Asst. Pros. Atty. (in 21425 and 21543), for appellee.
Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and BASHARA and MAHER, JJ.
Defendants were initially charged with unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle, M.C.L.A. § 750.413; M.S.A. § 28.645, and receiving or concealing stolen property valued in excess of $100, M.C.L.A. § 750.535; M.S.A. § 28.803. At the preliminary examination, the value of the property was established at less than $100 and the prosecution moved to dismiss count two, receiving or concealing stolen property. The motion was granted and defendants were bound over for trial on the charge of unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle. A jury found them guilty and each defendant was sentenced to a term of from 40 to 60 months in prison. Defendants appeal and we reverse.
On February 11, 1974, at approximately 2:30 to 2:45 p.m., George Sharpe parked his Farm Crest Bakery truck in front of 12501 Linwood Avenue, left the engine running, the doors unlocked, and went into a drug and liquor store. Five to ten minutes later, Mr. Sharpe saw his truck being driven away. He could not see who was driving the truck or how many people were in it.
Between 2:30 and 3 p.m. that same day, Charles Jones, a Michigan Bell repairman, was standing on the porch of 12120 Wildemere. Mr. Jones noticed a Farm Crest Bakery truck in the alley about 100 feet from where he was standing. The truck was there when he arrived and next to the truck was a Buick with its trunk open. Mr. Jones saw one person standing near the back of the car and two people moving things from the truck. He never saw anyone in the truck but identified the three defendants in this case as the people he saw. It was not a positive identification, only that they looked familiar. After watching the three get into the Buick and drive off, a police car approached. Mr. Jones told the officers what he had seen, describing the Buick as 'gold with a dark top, a deuce and a quarter'. Mr. Sharpe later identified the truck in the alley as his and found merchandise to be missing.
At approximately 2:50 to 3 p.m., at the intersection of Davison and Linwood, police officers saw a 1967 Buick Electra 225. The officers had received information concerning a black over gold Buick containing three males. The car pulled into an A & P parking lot and four people got out. As they were walking toward the store, they were stopped. An officer went over to the car, looked in through the rear window and saw what appeared to be baked goods. He entered the car, moved a plywood board, and found boxes of Farm Crest doughnuts.
As previously stated, defendants were initially charged with unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle, a felony, and receiving or concealing stolen property over $100, also a felony. When testimony at the preliminary examination valued the property at under $100, reducing the second count to a misdemeanor, that count was dropped. It appears from the testimony in this case, that defendants could properly have been charged with breaking or entering a 'motor vehicle * * * for the purpose of stealing or unlawfully removing therefrom any goods, chattels or property of the value of not less than $5.00,' M.C.L.A. § 750.356a; M.S.A. § 28.588(1), a felony. However, defendants were tried for unlawfully driving away a motor vehicle which requires that the prosecution prove that they: (1) took possession of the vehicle, (2) drove or took it away, (3) wilfully, and (4) without authority. People v. Limon, 4 Mich.App. 440, 442, 145 N.W.2d 287 (1966).
The evidence regarding the crime charged here is entirely circumstantial. '(W)here the people's case is based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution has the burden of proving 'that there is no innocent theory possible which will, without violation of reason, accord with the facts." People v. Davenport, 39 Mich.App. 252, 256, 197 N.W.2d 521, 522 (1972). (Citations omitted.) Defendants cannot be convicted because Someone unlawfully drove away Mr. Sharpe's truck.
The prosecution in the present case attempted to show, by a close time sequence, that the three persons seen taking baked goods from a parked truck unlawfully drove that truck away from the drug and liquor store. There is no question here of conspiracy to commit the illegal act, M.C.L.A. § 750.157a; M.S.A. § 28.354(1), since that was not charged; nor would the evidence support a theory of aiding or abetting the commission of the offense, M.C.L.A. § 767.39; M.S.A. § 28.979, since such a charge must relate in this case to the taking of the truck, not its contents. Can it be said, then, with 'impelling certainty', see People v. Davenport, supra, that persons taking baked goods from a parked truck, driven to the spot minutes earlier, participated in unlawfully driving it away?
The fact that three men moved baked goods from a stolen truck minutes after the truck had been unlawfully driven away by some person or persons, does not lead inevitably to the conclusion, that those men were guilty of having unlawfully driven away that truck. It is possible that any or all of the defendants began taking baked goods from the truck independent of the truck's taking. The truck was unlocked and its engine running when taken from the drug and liquor store. There is a reasonable possibility that the taking of the truck was not planned and that whoever did drive away with the truck in the first place had parked it by the time any or all of the defendants arrived at the alley. Therefore, the prosecution in this case failed to negate every reasonable theory consistent with defendants' innocence of the crime charged. See People v. Parks, 57 Mich.App. 738, 744, 226 N.W.2d 710 (1975).
Defendants' convictions are reversed without a new trial.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Orsie
...Davenport, 39 Mich.App. 252, 197 N.W.2d 521 (1972), People v. Wingfield, 62 Mich.App. 161, 233 N.W.2d 220 (1975), People v. Talley, 67 Mich.App. 239, 240 N.W.2d 496 (1976). In this case, the prosecution did not negate every reasonable theory of innocence. There is a reasonable possibility t......
-
People v. Clay
... ... Benny Lee CLAY, Defendant-Appellant ... Docket No. 77-2726 ... 95 Mich.App. 152, 289 N.W.2d 888 ... Court of Appeals of ... Wingfield, 62 Mich.App. 161, 233 N.W.2d 220 (1975); People v. Talley, 67 Mich.App.[95 MICHAPP 159] 239, 240 N.W.2d 496 (1976); People v ... ...
-
People v. Goodchild
...it away, (3) willfully, and (4) without authority. People v. Limon, 4 Mich.App. 440, 442, 145 N.W.2d 287 (1966); People v. Talley, 67 Mich.App. 239, 240 N.W.2d 496 (1976). It is evident, and our Supreme Court has so ruled, that unlawfully driving away an automobile does not require proof of......
-
People v. Mancill
...present evidence that not only points to defendant's guilt but also negates any reasonable theory of innocence. People v. Talley, 67 Mich.App. 239, 240 N.W.2d 496 (1976), People v. Wingfield, 62 Mich.App. 161, 233 N.W.2d 220 (1975), People v. Davenport, 39 Mich.App. 252, 197 N.W.2d 521 (197......