People v. Simon, Docket No. 6,779 (Michigan Ct. App. Mar. 30, 1970)

Factual and Procedural Background

Albert E. Simon, Jr. was tried by a jury on October 1, 1968, and convicted of receiving stolen property of a value over $100 (CLS 1961, § 750.535). The conviction arose from the theft of an Apache camping trailer on April 4, 1968. On the same day, defendant was apprehended hauling the trailer behind his automobile and admitted he had stolen it. At the preliminary examination, held after the theft, a qualified appraiser testified (May 21, 1968) that the trailer was worth $200 and that he observed no new conditions or additions when he appraised it. A police officer testified the trailer had been in police custody from April 4, 1968, to May 21, 1968. Defendant moved to quash the information on the theory that the preliminary examination transcript contained no evidence of the value of the trailer at the time of the offense. The trial court denied the motion to quash, the defendant was convicted and sentenced, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals issued its decision on March 30, 1970; rehearing was denied May 4, 1970.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to quash the information on the ground that the preliminary examination transcript did not contain evidence of the value of the stolen property at the time of the offense.
2. Whether references at trial to the defendant's admission that he stole the trailer constituted improper proof of a distinct offense and were reversible error.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The motion to quash should have been granted because the preliminary examination transcript allegedly contained no evidence establishing the value of the trailer at the time of the offense.
• References in the prosecuting attorney's opening statement, closing argument, and during testimony to the defendant's admission that he stole the trailer were improper proof of a distinct offense and so prejudicial as to require reversal.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the People's (prosecutor's) trial or appellate arguments beyond what is described in the court's analysis.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court addressed the motion to quash first. It identified the applicable standard from People v. Medley: on a motion to quash the information a trial court must find on the record that the magistrate abused his discretion in binding the defendant over for trial. The court reviewed the preliminary examination record and the related factual testimony: the trailer was stolen April 4, 1968; the defendant was caught hauling it and admitted theft; an appraiser testified on May 21, 1968 that the trailer was worth $200 and that no new conditions or additions were observed since the theft; and a police officer testified the trailer had been in police custody from April 4 to May 21. Given that evidence, the court concluded the trial court could not find an abuse of discretion by the magistrate in binding the defendant over. Thus the denial of the motion to quash was affirmed.

As to the references at trial to the defendant's admission that he stole the trailer, the court noted that an element of the charged offense is that the defendant knew the property received was stolen. The court referenced CL 1948, § 768.27 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1050) and held that the proof and argument referring to defendant's admission were proper to prove that element. The court therefore rejected the claim that such references constituted improper proof of a distinct offense requiring reversal.

The opinion also notes briefly that the defendant abandoned the other two issues raised on appeal, and so the court did not address them.

Holding and Implications

AFFIRMED

Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant's conviction for receiving stolen property. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to quash the information, and references at trial to the defendant's admission that he stole the trailer were permissible to show the requisite knowledge that the property was stolen under CL 1948, § 768.27.

Implications: The direct effect is that the defendant's conviction and sentence were upheld. The opinion does not announce or rely upon any new legal doctrine beyond application of existing standards (People v. Medley and the cited statute) and does not discuss broader legal implications beyond the outcome in this case.