People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 31 March 1970
• Docket Number: No. 1,Docket No. 7743,1
• Citation: People v. Williams, 23 Mich.App. 129, 178 N.W.2d 128 (Mich. App. 1970)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 128

178 N.W.2d 128

23 Mich.App. 129

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Willie WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 7743.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

March 31, 1970.

Released for Publication July 8, 1970.

Leave to Appeal Denied June 12, 1970.

Carl Levin, Arthur J. Tarnow, 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 LESINSKI, C.J., and QUINN and V. J. BRENNAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

DefendantWillie Williams was convicted, following waiver of his right to jury trial, of breaking and entering a building in the nighttime (C.L.1948, § 750.110(Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.305))¹ and larceny from a building (M.C.L.A. § 750.360(Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.592)).Following the denial of defendant's delayed motion for new trial, this Court granted defendant's application for delayed appeal.²

The sole issue raised on appeal by defendant is whether several exhibits admitted at trial consisting of tools missing from the gas station of the complaining witness were obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure, and whether their admission into evidence constituted reversible error.

Although defendant objected to the introduction of the exhibits at trial, no motion to suppress was made prior to trial.It has long been a well-established rule that the illegality of seizure of evidence, whether the facts constituting such illegality are known before trial, must first be raised by a motion to suppress in advance of trial.Defendant may not raise the issue at trial for the first time.People v. Heibel(1943), 305 Mich. 710, 9 N.E.2d 826;People v. Ferguson(1965), 376 Mich. 90, 135 N.W.2d 357;People v. Wilson(1967), 8 Mich.App. 651, 155 N.W.2d 210.A defendant with knowledge of facts constituting an alleged illegal search and seizure before trial has the responsibility of communicating same to his attorney who then has the responsibility of moving to suppress in advance of trial.People v. Ferguson; People v. Wilson.In the instant casedefendant was clearly aware of all the facts surrounding his arrest and the search and seizure of the exhibits now complained of.As no motion to suppress was made prior to trial the issue of illegal search and seizure was waived.

Affirmed.

1See currently: M.C.L.A. § 750.110(Stat.Ann....