People v. Thompson

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Thompson

305 N.W.2d 304, 104 Mich. App. 715, 1981 Mich. App. LEXIS 2840

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 17, 1981

DocketDocket No. 55785

StatusPublished

This text of 305 N.W.2d 304 (People v. Thompson) 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. Thompson, 305 N.W.2d 304, 104 Mich. App. 715, 1981 Mich. App. LEXIS 2840 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

On Remand

Before: Danhof, C.J., and N. J. Kaufman and D. C. Riley, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This case reappears by opinion and order of the Michigan Supreme Court of December 23, 1980, reversing our prior judgment at 94 Mich App 315; 288 NW2d 421 (1979), and remanding for determination of whether the corpus delicti of the added receiving and concealing charge was properly placed in evidence by the prosecution. 410 Mich 66; 299 NW2d 343 (1980).

The objection originally brought to this Court by defendant regarding his conviction of receiving or concealing stolen property was the assertion that the conviction was infirm because "the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti aliunde the appellant’s in-court admission”. We do not agree.

The evidence at trial showed that the robber fled in an automobile and that the complainant pursued him, enlisting along the way the aid of police officers who eventually stopped defendant and effectuated his arrest. One of the arresting officers testified that the automobile in which defendant was captured had been discovered by the police to have been stolen. In our opinion, a possessory offense, such as receiving or concealing stolen property, could be established by police testimony that the defendant was in possession of the stolen vehicle when apprehended. In addition, the record [717]*717reflects that the parties and the trial court agreed to eliminate the element of the offense which requires that the property be identified as being the same property which had been stolen previously. It thus appears that there was sufficient evidence aliunde defendant’s in-court admissions to establish the corpus delicti of the offense in question.

Since the prosecution has met its evidentiary burden, defendant’s conviction on the added felony charge is reinstated. The trial court is affirmed.

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

On Remand

Before: Danhof, C.J., and N. J. Kaufman and D. C. Riley, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This case reappears by opinion and order of the Michigan Supreme Court of December 23, 1980, reversing our prior judgment at 94 Mich App 315; 288 NW2d 421 (1979), and remanding for determination of whether the corpus delicti of the added receiving and concealing charge was properly placed in evidence by the prosecution. 410 Mich 66; 299 NW2d 343 (1980).

The objection originally brought to this Court by defendant regarding his conviction of receiving or concealing stolen property was the assertion that the conviction was infirm because "the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti aliunde the appellant’s in-court admission”. We do not agree.

The evidence at trial showed that the robber fled in an automobile and that the complainant pursued him, enlisting along the way the aid of police officers who eventually stopped defendant and effectuated his arrest. One of the arresting officers testified that the automobile in which defendant was captured had been discovered by the police to have been stolen. In our opinion, a possessory offense, such as receiving or concealing stolen property, could be established by police testimony that the defendant was in possession of the stolen vehicle when apprehended. In addition, the record [717]*717reflects that the parties and the trial court agreed to eliminate the element of the offense which requires that the property be identified as being the same property which had been stolen previously. It thus appears that there was sufficient evidence aliunde defendant’s in-court admissions to establish the corpus delicti of the offense in question.

Since the prosecution has met its evidentiary burden, defendant’s conviction on the added felony charge is reinstated. The trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 N.W.2d 304, 104 Mich. App. 715, 1981 Mich. App. LEXIS 2840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thompson-michctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack