People v. Cosselin

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Cosselin

165 N.W.2d 275, 14 Mich. App. 298, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 909

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 26, 1968

DocketDocket 5,209

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 165 N.W.2d 275 (People v. Cosselin) 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. Cosselin, 165 N.W.2d 275, 14 Mich. App. 298, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 909 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant Cosselin, one of four defendants, was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering. 1

On the night in question, June 30, 1967, the four had rented a motel room next to the site of the breaking and entering where a quantity of cigarettes was taken. "When they left the motel, the linens in the room disappeared. A police officer investigating the breaking and entering checked the motel, learned of the missing linens, and also that a codefendant, Littke, who was known to the officer, had registered for the room. He also learned the identity of the car registered to this room. A day later, the officer saw the car and, upon looking through its window, saw a pillowcase inside bearing the name of the motel. A search of the car without warrant revealed a quantity of cigarettes. Pie arrested the occupants, being two of the defendants, and charged them with the breaking and entering and with larceny in a building 2 for the taking of the linens. Later, the four defendants were charged with breaking and entering.

Defendants’ appeal raised 2 principal questions:

1) Was the arrest illegal, thereby making the search and seizure illegal and rendering inadmissible those things that were the fruit of that search and seizure?

*300 2) "Was the trial court in error in charging the jury that sharing in the proceeds of a crime, 3 in this case breaking and entering, constitutes sufficient basis for conviction as a principal? 4

Answering the first question, this Court in People v. Wolfe (1967), 5 Mich App 543, has established the standard for a lawful search and seizure without a warrant. As in that case, the officer here had reasonable cause to believe that the occupants of the automobile had been involved in a felony (breaking and entering).

Answering the second question, a review of the record reveals that the trial court in its instructions specifically ruled out a conviction as principal based solely on sharing in the proceeds.

Affirmed.

Fitzgerald, P. J"., and R. B. Burns and Robinson, JJ., concurred.

1

CL 1948, § 750.110 as amended by PA 1964, No 133 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 28.305).

2

CL 1948, § 750.360 (Stat Ann 1954 Bov § 28.592).

3

CLS 1961, § 750.535 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 28.803).

4

CL 1948, § 767.39 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.979).

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant Cosselin, one of four defendants, was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering. 1

On the night in question, June 30, 1967, the four had rented a motel room next to the site of the breaking and entering where a quantity of cigarettes was taken. "When they left the motel, the linens in the room disappeared. A police officer investigating the breaking and entering checked the motel, learned of the missing linens, and also that a codefendant, Littke, who was known to the officer, had registered for the room. He also learned the identity of the car registered to this room. A day later, the officer saw the car and, upon looking through its window, saw a pillowcase inside bearing the name of the motel. A search of the car without warrant revealed a quantity of cigarettes. Pie arrested the occupants, being two of the defendants, and charged them with the breaking and entering and with larceny in a building 2 for the taking of the linens. Later, the four defendants were charged with breaking and entering.

Defendants’ appeal raised 2 principal questions:

1) Was the arrest illegal, thereby making the search and seizure illegal and rendering inadmissible those things that were the fruit of that search and seizure?

*300 2) "Was the trial court in error in charging the jury that sharing in the proceeds of a crime, 3 in this case breaking and entering, constitutes sufficient basis for conviction as a principal? 4

Answering the first question, this Court in People v. Wolfe (1967), 5 Mich App 543, has established the standard for a lawful search and seizure without a warrant. As in that case, the officer here had reasonable cause to believe that the occupants of the automobile had been involved in a felony (breaking and entering).

Answering the second question, a review of the record reveals that the trial court in its instructions specifically ruled out a conviction as principal based solely on sharing in the proceeds.

Affirmed.

Fitzgerald, P. J"., and R. B. Burns and Robinson, JJ., concurred.

1

CL 1948, § 750.110 as amended by PA 1964, No 133 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 28.305).

2

CL 1948, § 750.360 (Stat Ann 1954 Bov § 28.592).

3

CLS 1961, § 750.535 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 28.803).

4

CL 1948, § 767.39 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.979).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 N.W.2d 275, 14 Mich. App. 298, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cosselin-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack