People v. Walsh, Docket No. 6278
Decision Date | 02 October 1970 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 6278,No. 1,1 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Daniel WALSH, Defendant-Appellant |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
M. Glenn Grossman, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., Thomas P. Smith, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before T. M. BURNS, P.J., and LEVIN and DAVIDSON, * JJ.
On July 18, 1968, defendant was sentenced to from five to ten years, with a recommendation of psychiatric treatment, for violation of M.C.L.A. § 257.254 (Stat.Ann.1970 Cum.Supp. § 9.1954), possession of a stolen motor vehicle.
The facts as stated by the defendant in his brief, and accepted by the plaintiff are:
'Detective William Marshall testified that Janesse was in custody long before the date that the defendant was ---, and that he was satisfied that Janesse was in custody either in Wayne County or Jackson prison from February 5, 1968, through February 23, and that he has a duplicate arrest card from Green Bay, Wisconsin, and a duplicate card indicating his presence in the Wayne County jail.
'For the defense, Durwood Gibson testified that he had noticed the car in the neighborhood for about two months, that he had known defendant for about two and one half years, and that on February 21 or 22 at the Dug Out bar defendant introduced the witness to Janesse, at which time defendant asked for and received Janesse's permission to use his car the next day, which was also the last time that the witness saw the car in the neighborhood.
'Harry Hryczyki, the owner of the bar, testified that he saw Janesse in possession of and buying gas for a car in the winter of 1968, but never saw defendant driving it.
'A daughter of one of the jurors became ill and that juror was excused with the consent of the parties.
'Dale Gonter corroborated the general outline drawn by the preceding defense witnesses.
'In his closing argument, the prosecutor stressed the custody of Janesse as indicating that the defense witnesses were lying.
'Pages 114 to 120 of the transcript indicate the concern of the defendant's lawyer about a proper charge as to knowledge.
'After the charge, the jury found the defendant guilty as charged.' (Page citations omitted).
Does the criminal information sufficiently conform to the statute under which it was drawn to support the verdict?
The defendant asserts that the somewhat inartfully drawn information was so deficient that it makes the guilty verdict immaterial. We cannot agree. Although defendant's arguments of deficiency would be telling if we were to decide on grammatical niceties, we are compelled to reject them here.
The information adequately informed the defendant that he was, in alleged violation of the statute, in possession of a motor vehicle which he 'knew' or had reason to believe had been stolen. See also M.C.L.A. § 767.59 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.999).
Defendant raised no objection to the information at Voir dire or during the jury charge. Therefore, he may not raise the possible imperfection now.
The defendant's claim that M.C.L.A. § 257.254 (Stat.Ann.1...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. White
...was not prejudiced, and in any event her failure to request a curative instruction precludes objection on appeal. People v. Walsh (1970), 27 Mich.App. 100, 183 N.W.2d 360. Defendant next objects to the use of a nonexpert to prove the substance sold was marijuana. The testifying technician w......
-
People v. Whetstone
...the trial court. People v. Kildow, 19 Mich.App. 194, 172 N.W.2d 492 (1969), lv. den. 383 Mich. 803 (1970). Also, see People v. Walsh, 27 Mich.App. 100, 183 N.W.2d 360 (1970). Therefore, I would find that we should not review the issue of whether defendant was properly charged. Furthermore, ......
-
People v. Juniel, Docket No. 19860
...if she had called the police. This was a volunteered statement prior to accusation, not within the Miranda rule, People v. Walsh, 27 Mich.App. 100, 105, 183 N.W.2d 360 [62 MICHAPP 535] (1970). When defendant stated that she hoped she had hit the individual, Officer Kuipers was still attempt......
-
People v. Shegog, Docket Nos. 12103
...unless objection to the instructions is made at the trial. People v. Lewis, 26 Mich.App. 290, 182 N.W.2d 86 (1970); People v. Walsh, 27 Mich.App. 100, 183 N.W.2d 360 (1970); People v. Hollis, 30 Mich.App. 218, 186 N.W.2d 8 (1971); GCR 1963, --Third, defendants contend that they were prejudi......