People v. White
| Decision Date | 11 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | Jan. Term, 1936.,No. 115,115 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WHITE et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court; Genesee County; Ray Hart, Judge.
Andy White and Arthur Lancto were convicted of receiving stolen property, and they bring error.
Reversed and defendants discharged.
Argued before the Entire Bench, except TOY, J.
Stockton, Cline & George, of Flint, for appellant.
Andrew Transue, Pros. Atty., of Flint, for the People.
Defendants were arrested and arraigned before a justice of the peace on a warrant charging them and others with the larceny of 100 cartons of spark plugs valued at $2,800, larceny from a factory without breaking, and with conspiracy to commit larceny. The production manager of the spark plug manufacturer testified that between January 1, 1933, and June 26, 1933, approximately 13,000,000 spark plugs were produced in his plant, and that an inventory disclosed the fact that 21,541 were missing. Over defendants' objection, the people then introduced testimony to show admissions on the part of defendants and the transcript of the unsigned statements made by them in answer to questions by detectives of the police force of the city of Flint. A motion to dismiss was denied and defendants were held for trial.
Upon arraignment in the circuit court on an information charging larceny, unlawful entry with intent to steal, and conspiracy to steal, defendants pleaded not guilty. They were again arraigned about two months later upon an amended information containing similar charges, but to which was added a count charging them with receiving and concealing stolen property. They stood mute and were tried following a denial of their challenge to the array and a separate motion to quash the information. A jury found them guilty of receiving stolen property.
In a motion for new trial the claimed errors, including the trial court's failure to grant the motion to quash the information, were argued and denied, to which exceptions were duly entered.
It appears to be well settled that the corpus delicti cannot alone be established by the extrajudicial confession of an accused. If the admissions, which were in the nature of confessions, be eliminated from the testimony taken by the examining magistrate, that which remains is not sufficient to establish probable cause that the crime of either larceny or conspiracy to steal has been committed by any one. Aside from the confessions, there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hall
...probable cause to believe he is guilty of it." Id., at pp. 575-576, 189 N.W.2d 234. (Emphasis in original). See also People v. White, 276 Mich. 29, 31, 267 N.W. 777 (1936); People v. Kennedy, 384 Mich. 339, 183 N.W.2d 297 In this appeal we are urged to reconsider Walker and to hold that err......
-
People v. Johnson
...265 Mich. 486, 491, 251 N.W. 594 (1933); People v. Talley, 410 Mich. 378, 385, 301 N.W.2d 809 (1981).9 See People v. White, 276 Mich. 29, 31-32, 267 N.W. 777 (1936), where this Court said:"The failure of the people to sustain their charge may be unfortunate, in view of the subsequent testim......
-
People v. Williams
...corpus delicti rule applies to preliminary examinations. People v. Asta, 337 Mich. 590, 614, 60 N.W.2d 472 (1953); People v. White, 276 Mich. 29, 31, 267 N.W. 777 (1936); Juniel, n 2 supra, 62 Mich App 536, 233 N.W.2d 635. The examining magistrate need not determine the degree of murder at ......
-
People v. Patterson, Docket No. 9457
...over on the charge of second-degree murder and that the use of defendant's confession at the examination was improper. People v. White (1936), 276 Mich. 29, 267 N.W. 777. However, the examining magistrate was himself careful to view the evidence submitted at the examination without referenc......