From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Haynes

Michigan Court of Appeals
Oct 27, 1971
36 Mich. App. 705 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)

Opinion

Docket No. 11835.

Decided October 27, 1971. Leave to appeal applied for.

Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit, Elvin L. Davenport, J. Submitted Division 1 September 7, 1971, at Detroit. (Docket No. 11835.) Decided October 27, 1971. Leave to appeal applied for.

Lorenzo Haynes was convicted of entering or breaking and entering a motor vehicle for the purpose of stealing or unlawfully removing property of the value of not less than $5. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William A. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and John L. Quaine, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Jack J. Kraizman, for defendant.

Before: LESINSKI, C.J., and QUINN and BRONSON, JJ.


Defendant's non-jury trial resulted in his conviction of entering or breaking and entering a motor vehicle for the purpose of stealing or unlawfully removing property of the value of not less than $5, MCLA § 750.356a (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.588). He was sentenced and he appeals.

At the close of the people's case, there was no proof of the value of the article defendant removed from the motor vehicle. He moved for a directed verdict of not guilty. The motion was denied, defendant rested and the judge found him guilty.

Defendant attacks his conviction on the ground that the people failed to prove all elements of the offense. The attack is valid and successful, People v. Hanenberg (1936), 274 Mich. 698.

Reversed. MEMORANDUM OPINIONS


Summaries of

People v. Haynes

Michigan Court of Appeals
Oct 27, 1971
36 Mich. App. 705 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)
Case details for

People v. Haynes

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. HAYNES

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Oct 27, 1971

Citations

36 Mich. App. 705 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)
193 N.W.2d 899

Citing Cases

People v. Westman

Proof that the value of the goods was not less than $5 was an essential element of the felony charged. People…

People v. Nichols

Under the statute in the instant case, the defendant does not have to obtain possession of any goods. People…