People v. Vida

• Decision Date: 09 April 1969
• Docket Number: No. 24,24
• Citation: 381 Mich. 595,166 N.W.2d 465
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ernest J. VIDA, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 465

166 N.W.2d 465

381 Mich. 595

The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ernest J. VIDA, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 24.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 9, 1969.

William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., for Wayne County, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Angelo A. Pentolino, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Gregory M. Pillon, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH.

KELLY, Justice.

Ernest J. Vida was convicted in the Recorder's Court of Detroit of obtaining personal property of a value of more than $100 by false pretenses in violation of C.L.S.1961, § 750.218 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.415), and was sentenced on March 5, 1964, to State Prison of Southern Michigan for a period of not less than 7 1/2 nor more than 10 years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. People v. Vida, 2 Mich.App. 409, 140 N.W.2d 559.

To prove intent, ¹ the State produced three witnesses, in addition to complainant Melbourne P. King, and all four testified that they advertised their automobiles for sale in a Detroit newspaper and, responding to said advertisements, defendant visited them at their respective Detroit residences. The visit to the Price and Smith residences occurred on Saturday, February 2, 1963, and the King and Hayes visits were made on the following day, Sunday, February 3, 1963.

All four of these witnesses stated that they gave defendant the titles and keys to their automobiles and that defendant gave to them checks (totalling for the four over $10,000), having the name, address and telephone number of the 'Annis Real Estate and Tax Service,' ² and that none of the checks was honored because of insufficient funds.

Plaintiff introduced proof that on January 24, 1963, defendant, using the name of Annis, rented a vacant store in the city of Pontiac, Michigan, under the name of 'Annis Real Estate and Tax Office.' The agreed rental was $85 per month, but the defendant made a deposit of only $25. The owner never saw him again after making said deposit until the date of trial.

Plaintiff also introduced proof that on January 26, 1963, a checking account in the name of 'Annis Real Estate and Tax Service' was opened, with an opening amount of $50, against which a check for $20 was drawn on February 2, 1963.

The record does not sustain defendant's claim that 'the trial judge by taking over the questioning of witnesses in several instances, so destroy(ed) his neutral image as to prejudice the defendant before the jury,' or the claim that the trial judge committed reversible error in instructing the jury.

Defendant's claim that 'the court err(ed) in telling the jury to retire to the jury room, select a foreman and attempt to arrive at a verdict,' is without merit.

The court, over objection, permitted the following questions to be asked and answers given by complainant King:

'Q. Now, I will ask you again, Lieutenant, if on February the 3rd * * * at the time that Mr. Annis purchased your car, he disclosed to you that at approximately eight p.m. on Saturday, February the 2nd, he had purchased a 1962 Buick 4-door hardtop as a present for his wife?

'A. Definitely no. * * *

'Q. Did he disclose to you that on Saturday, February the 2nd at some time after eight p.m., he had purchased from Mr. Frank G. Smith, a 1962 Ford T-bird as a present for his wife?

'A. No, sir, he did not. * * *

'Q. Had you known of these two facts at the time of the negotiations with Mr. Annis, would you have accepted the statements he made with relation to himself in other regard?

'A. No.'

Defendant claims this constituted error because:

'The jury must determine if the defendant defrauded the complainant, and by the trial court actions the complainant is allowed to speculate as to what his state of mind would have been, and thereby concretely establishing the fraud in the mind of the jury. A defendant cannot be and should not be convicted on speculation and conjecture.'

Defendant was not convicted 'on speculation and conjecture,' and a review of the record sustains the Court of Appeals' finding that (p. 412, 140 N.W.2d p. 561):

'The record clearly indicates that ...