Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Docket No. 4,620.

Attorney(S)

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Ronald J. Taylor, Prosecuting Attorney, and Wilbur Schillinger, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people. Butzbaugh, Page Butzbaugh, for defendant.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Summary of Opinion: People v. Ford, Docket No. 4,620 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 1969)

Factual and Procedural Background

Lewis Ford was convicted by a jury of armed robbery under MCLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 28.797). He appealed his conviction. On appeal Ford challenged the propriety of admitting certain exhibits at trial, arguing that some exhibits were obtained by an illegal search and seizure and others were not properly identified or connected to him. He also asserted that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Ford and another defendant (People v. Walker) were involved in the same offense and were in the same vehicle when they were apprehended within ten minutes of the robbery. Items observed or seized near the vehicle included loose money, a pistol, face masks, and keys to the robbed store. The appeal was submitted October 7, 1969, and decided October 27, 1969, in the Michigan Court of Appeals (Division 3), affirming the conviction.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether certain exhibits should have been excluded because they were obtained by an illegal search and seizure.
Whether certain exhibits should have been excluded because they were not properly identified and connected with the defendant.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Certain exhibits introduced by the prosecution should have been excluded on the ground they were obtained by an illegal search and seizure.
Other exhibits were not properly identified and therefore were not sufficiently connected to the defendant.
The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
People v. Walker (1968), 15 Mich. App. 25	The search and seizure in the companion case were lawful; the seized items were sufficiently identified to warrant submission to the jury.	The court treated Walker as dispositive on the search-and-seizure and identification issues because Walker involved the same offense and vehicle; thus the evidence seized was admissible in Ford's trial.
People v. Schram (1965), 1 Mich. App. 279	Articulates standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence (focus on whether evidence warrants a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).	Cited as part of authority for the proposition that appellate review does not reweigh evidence and will not disturb a jury verdict supported by evidence sufficient for a finding beyond a reasonable doubt.
People v. Jones (1965), 1 Mich. App. 633	Same standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence.	Used with other cases to support the court's application of the sufficiency-of-evidence test in affirming the conviction.
People v. Washington (1966), 4 Mich. App. 453	Same standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence.	Cited in support of the court's conclusion that the evidence warranted a guilty finding beyond a reasonable doubt.
People v. Galarno (1966), 3 Mich. App. 491	Same standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence.	Cited along with other authorities to justify noninterference with the jury's verdict where evidence supports a reasonable inference of guilt.
People v. Eagger (1966), 4 Mich. App. 449	Appellate courts do not constitute a reviewing jury and do not hear cases anew upon the evidence.	Relied upon to emphasize that the appellate court will not retry the facts or substitute its judgment for the jury's where evidence supports the verdict.
People v. Arither Thomas (1967), 7 Mich. App. 103	Appellate courts do not act as a reviewing jury and do not rehear cases anew on the evidence.	Cited to support the court's refusal to overturn the jury's finding on the basis of reexamining the evidence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court addressed the two principal challenges asserted by the defendant.

Search and Seizure / Identification: The court held that the first issue (illegality of search and seizure and sufficiency of identification of exhibits) had been previously decided in the companion case People v. Walker. Because Walker involved the same offense and the same vehicle where apprehension and the alleged search and seizure occurred, and Walker held that "the search and seizure were lawful" and that "the seized items were sufficiently identified to warrant their submission to the jury," the court concluded the seized evidence was admissible in Ford's case.
Sufficiency of the Evidence: The court observed the factual circumstances (four persons apprehended within ten minutes of the robbery while in an automobile surrounded by loose money, a pistol, face masks, keys to the robbed store, etc.) and stated it was difficult to believe that one of those persons took no part in the robbery. The court noted the statutory abolition of the distinction between accessory and principal (MCLA § 767.39) and concluded that evidence, if believed by the jury, could lead to a reasonable inference that Ford was a party to the offense. The court reiterated the appellate standard that it will not disturb a jury's determination where reasonable minds could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, citing People v. Schram, People v. Jones, People v. Washington, and People v. Galarno. It further noted that appellate courts do not retry cases (People v. Eagger; People v. Arither Thomas).

Based on these analyses, the court concluded there was ample evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict and that Ford received a fair and impartial trial.

Holding and Implications

Affirmed.

Holding: The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant's conviction for armed robbery.

Implications: The direct effect is that the jury's verdict and the conviction were upheld. The court found the challenged evidence admissible (citing People v. Walker) and concluded the evidence supported a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The opinion does not announce or discuss any broader changes in legal precedent beyond applying existing authorities and statutes cited in the opinion.

Show full summary ...

PEOPLE v. FORD

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals a jury-trial conviction of armed robbery. MCLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1969 Cum Supp § 28.797). On appeal, defendant questions the propriety of the introduction of certain exhibits offered by the people on the basis that they should have been excluded inasmuch as some were obtained by an illegal search and seizure, and others were not properly identified and connected with the defendant. Defendant further contends there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant's first issue has been previously decided in the companion case of People v. Walker (1968), 15 Mich. App. 25. Walker and the present defendant, Lewis Ford, were involved in the same offense and were in the same vehicle where apprehension and the alleged illegal search and seizure of evidence took place. In Walker, the Court of Appeals held (p 26):

"The record substantiates the trial court's finding that the search and seizure were lawful. The seized items were sufficiently identified to warrant their submission to the jury."

People v. Walker, supra, establishes that the evidence seized was admissible. It is difficult to believe that one of the four persons apprehended within 10 minutes of the robbery while sitting in an automobile surrounded by loose money, a pistol, face masks, keys to the robbed store, etc., took no part in the actual robbery. The distinction between accessory and principal has been abolished. MCLA § 767.39 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.979).

Evidence produced at trial, if believed, could certainly lead to a reasonable inference that this defendant was a party to the offense.

Where there is evidence from which a jury could reasonably find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a reviewing court will not interfere with the jury's determination. The test is not whether the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, but whether the evidence warrants a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged. People v. Schram (1965), 1 Mich. App. 279; People v. Jones (1965), 1 Mich. App. 633; People v. Washington (1966) 4 Mich. App. 453; People v. Galarno (1966), 3 Mich. App. 491.

Appellate courts do not constitute a reviewing jury and do not hear cases anew upon the evidence presented in a criminal case. People v. Eagger (1966), 4 Mich. App. 449; People v. Arither Thomas (1967), 7 Mich. App. 103.

In the instant case there was ample evidence to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury. Defendant was given a fair and impartial trial; there was no miscarriage of justice. MCLA § 769.26 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1096).

Affirmed.

PEOPLE v. FORD

Summary of Opinion: People v. Ford, Docket No. 4,620 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 1969)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

PEOPLE v. FORD

Comments