People v. Saunders

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Saunders

181 N.W.2d 4, 25 Mich. App. 149, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1533

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1970

DocketDocket 7,212

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 181 N.W.2d 4 (People v. Saunders) 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. Saunders, 181 N.W.2d 4, 25 Mich. App. 149, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1533 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant Leroy Saunders was tried and convicted by a jury of breaking and entering an office with intent to commit larceny. MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.305). He appeals as of right, alleging 1) that certain questioning of his alleged accomplices by the trial court denied him a fair trial, and 2) that the jury’s finding of an unlawful intent is not supported by the evidence. Neither of these allegations is of merit, and we affirm.

It is apparent from a reading of the trial transcript that the court’s questions were designed to clarify evasive and conflicting testimony and ultimately to impart to the jury an accurate understanding of the events in question. They reflect neither a partiality to the prosecution nor the court’s opinion of the case. See People v. Wilder (1970), 383 Mich 122; People v. Young (1961), 364 Mich 554. People v. Moore (1943), 306 Mich 29. As to the defendant’s second allegation, the requisite intent may be reasonably inferred from the nature, time and place of his acts before and during the breaking and entering, and therefore the jury’s finding is supported by the evidence. People v. Gollman (1966), 3 Mich App 463.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant Leroy Saunders was tried and convicted by a jury of breaking and entering an office with intent to commit larceny. MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.305). He appeals as of right, alleging 1) that certain questioning of his alleged accomplices by the trial court denied him a fair trial, and 2) that the jury’s finding of an unlawful intent is not supported by the evidence. Neither of these allegations is of merit, and we affirm.

It is apparent from a reading of the trial transcript that the court’s questions were designed to clarify evasive and conflicting testimony and ultimately to impart to the jury an accurate understanding of the events in question. They reflect neither a partiality to the prosecution nor the court’s opinion of the case. See People v. Wilder (1970), 383 Mich 122; People v. Young (1961), 364 Mich 554. People v. Moore (1943), 306 Mich 29. As to the defendant’s second allegation, the requisite intent may be reasonably inferred from the nature, time and place of his acts before and during the breaking and entering, and therefore the jury’s finding is supported by the evidence. People v. Gollman (1966), 3 Mich App 463.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 N.W.2d 4, 25 Mich. App. 149, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-saunders-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack