People v. Titus

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Titus

189 N.W.2d 818, 33 Mich. App. 198, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1720

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 27, 1971

DocketDocket 8154

StatusPublished

This text of 189 N.W.2d 818 (People v. Titus) 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. Titus, 189 N.W.2d 818, 33 Mich. App. 198, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1720 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant, Samuel 0. Titus, appeals from a conviction of larceny in a building. MOLA § 750.360 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.592). The information charged that he stole a television set from a motel. The people move to affirm.

The remarks made by the assistant prosecuting attorney in his closing argument were not references to excluded evidence. The trial judge permitted to stand the testimony of the witness who said that he had examined the television set, looked at the serial number, and compared it with the inventory in his possession. Moreover, in the light of the evidence which was admitted, the remarks could not have been prejudicial to the defendant.

The arresting officers had probable cause to stop the vehicle in which the defendant and a codefendant were riding when they were arrested. The officers had heard a radio call that there was a breaking and entering in progress at the motel and a description of a white Renault in which the thieves had escaped. The officers sighted a vehicle matching that description within “a couple of minutes” from the time they heard the radio call. The vehicle was then perhaps only 500 to 600 feet from the motel. A television set was in plain view on the back seat of the vehicle. The police had probable cause to arrest the defendant and to seize the television set.

There is no merit in defendant’s claim that the failure of his trial counsel to move to suppress the seized television set deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel.

*200 It is manifest that the questions sought to be reviewed are so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm is granted.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant, Samuel 0. Titus, appeals from a conviction of larceny in a building. MOLA § 750.360 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.592). The information charged that he stole a television set from a motel. The people move to affirm.

The remarks made by the assistant prosecuting attorney in his closing argument were not references to excluded evidence. The trial judge permitted to stand the testimony of the witness who said that he had examined the television set, looked at the serial number, and compared it with the inventory in his possession. Moreover, in the light of the evidence which was admitted, the remarks could not have been prejudicial to the defendant.

The arresting officers had probable cause to stop the vehicle in which the defendant and a codefendant were riding when they were arrested. The officers had heard a radio call that there was a breaking and entering in progress at the motel and a description of a white Renault in which the thieves had escaped. The officers sighted a vehicle matching that description within “a couple of minutes” from the time they heard the radio call. The vehicle was then perhaps only 500 to 600 feet from the motel. A television set was in plain view on the back seat of the vehicle. The police had probable cause to arrest the defendant and to seize the television set.

There is no merit in defendant’s claim that the failure of his trial counsel to move to suppress the seized television set deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel.

*200 It is manifest that the questions sought to be reviewed are so unsubstantial as to need no argument or formal submission.

The motion to affirm is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 N.W.2d 818, 33 Mich. App. 198, 1971 Mich. App. LEXIS 1720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-titus-michctapp-1971.