People v. Mays

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Mays

172 N.W.2d 900, 19 Mich. App. 588, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1005

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 28, 1969

DocketDocket 7,354

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 172 N.W.2d 900 (People v. Mays) 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. Mays, 172 N.W.2d 900, 19 Mich. App. 588, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1005 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

*589 Pee Curiam.

This ease is submitted on the people’s motion to affirm. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the crime of armed robbery in violation of MCLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 28.797) and was sentenced to serve 8 to 25 years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict of guilty.

Notwithstanding defendant’s claims that he did not intend to deprive the complaining witnesses of their property permanently, a review of the transcript reveals there was sufficient evidence introduced which, if believed, would support the jury’s findings. The record discloses that defendant, while armed, robbed the three complaining witnesses. Also, there was introduced testimony that defendant, when apprehended, was wearing a watch owned by one of the victims and that the remainder of the victims’ belongings was found in defendant’s automobile. Based upon this record, there was ample evidence to support a finding of intent to deprive the victims of their belongings, notwithstanding defendant’s testimony. The credibility of the witnesses was within the province of the jury; there being credible evidence to support the jury’s findings, the verdict will not be upset. People v. Loudenslager (1950), 327 Mich 718; People v. Arither Thomas (1967), 7 Mich App 103.

The motion to affirm is granted.

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

*589 Pee Curiam.

This ease is submitted on the people’s motion to affirm. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the crime of armed robbery in violation of MCLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 28.797) and was sentenced to serve 8 to 25 years in prison. On appeal, defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict of guilty.

Notwithstanding defendant’s claims that he did not intend to deprive the complaining witnesses of their property permanently, a review of the transcript reveals there was sufficient evidence introduced which, if believed, would support the jury’s findings. The record discloses that defendant, while armed, robbed the three complaining witnesses. Also, there was introduced testimony that defendant, when apprehended, was wearing a watch owned by one of the victims and that the remainder of the victims’ belongings was found in defendant’s automobile. Based upon this record, there was ample evidence to support a finding of intent to deprive the victims of their belongings, notwithstanding defendant’s testimony. The credibility of the witnesses was within the province of the jury; there being credible evidence to support the jury’s findings, the verdict will not be upset. People v. Loudenslager (1950), 327 Mich 718; People v. Arither Thomas (1967), 7 Mich App 103.

The motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 N.W.2d 900, 19 Mich. App. 588, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mays-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack