People v. Beverly Haywood

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Beverly Haywood

183 N.W.2d 399, 27 Mich. App. 365, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1343

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 26, 1970

DocketDocket 8,288

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 183 N.W.2d 399 (People v. Beverly Haywood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Beverly Haywood, 183 N.W.2d 399, 27 Mich. App. 365, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1343 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of uttering and publishing a forged check, MCLA § 750.249 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.446). 1 She appeals contending that the trial court improperly accepted the guilty plea.

The statute under which appellant was convicted requires knowledge that the instrument “uttered and published” was “false, altered, forged or counterfeit.” While it is not required that before the court may accept a plea of guilty every element of the offense be directly established, it is required that the court obtain a reasonable ascertainment of the truth of the plea. People v. Bartlett (1969), 17 Mich App 205. Defendant stated, in response to the court’s questioning, that when she received the check the writing purporting to be the endorsement of the payee was already inscribed on the back of the check. This being so, the defendant could just as well have been a dupe for the man who askd her to cash it for him as a participant in the offense. We think a fair reading of the court’s rule-required examination is susceptible of either interpretation. Under these circumstances, we feel constrained to reverse and remand for a new trial.

1

She was sentenced to serve 4-1/2 to 14 years in the Detroit House of Correction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of uttering and publishing a forged check, MCLA § 750.249 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.446). 1 She appeals contending that the trial court improperly accepted the guilty plea.

The statute under which appellant was convicted requires knowledge that the instrument “uttered and published” was “false, altered, forged or counterfeit.” While it is not required that before the court may accept a plea of guilty every element of the offense be directly established, it is required that the court obtain a reasonable ascertainment of the truth of the plea. People v. Bartlett (1969), 17 Mich App 205. Defendant stated, in response to the court’s questioning, that when she received the check the writing purporting to be the endorsement of the payee was already inscribed on the back of the check. This being so, the defendant could just as well have been a dupe for the man who askd her to cash it for him as a participant in the offense. We think a fair reading of the court’s rule-required examination is susceptible of either interpretation. Under these circumstances, we feel constrained to reverse and remand for a new trial.

1

She was sentenced to serve 4-1/2 to 14 years in the Detroit House of Correction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 N.W.2d 399, 27 Mich. App. 365, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-beverly-haywood-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack