People v. Wahl

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Wahl

151 N.W.2d 894, 7 Mich. App. 314, 1967 Mich. App. LEXIS 576

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 10, 1967

DocketDocket 1,498

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 151 N.W.2d 894 (People v. Wahl) 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. Wahl, 151 N.W.2d 894, 7 Mich. App. 314, 1967 Mich. App. LEXIS 576 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

*315 T. G. Kavanagh, P. J.

On March 16, 1965, defendant was in charge of a souvenir store at the base of the twin towers in the Irish Ilills district of southern Michigan. The complainant and his wife were visiting the area and stopped into the souvenir store. When he returned home complainant changed his clothes and noticed that his wallet containing $130 was missing.

Meanwhile, defendant had found a wallet which had been left on the counter and had told his employer that he would recognize the' owner when he came to claim it. Defendant testified that a man did come and claim the wallet and he gave it to that man because he thought he was the owner.

About 15 minutes later complainant returned to the store and requested the wallet. Defendant denied having seen complainant’s wallet, according to his testimony because he thought complainant was playing a joke on him and because the wallet he had seen had been returned to the rightful owner. Defendant was charged with larceny by conversion. *

At trial, defendant produced two witnesses to testify as to his reputation. Upon objection by the prosecutor the court ruled that these witnesses could not be questioned further because their testimony did not relate defendant’s reputation in the community where he currently resided.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, judgment was rendered accordingly and defendant appealed.

During the trial counsel for defendant was permitted to question two witnesses in detail regarding defendant’s reputation for honesty. The testimony of both was favorable to defendant. Moreover, both witnesses whom defendant’s counsel was not permitted to question regarding reputation, stated for the record, before objection was made, that defend *316 ant’s reputation was good. These statements were not stricken from the record. Consequently, refusal to admit further testimony by these witnesses was not prejudicial to defendant. This court will not reverse for a new trial unless there was prejudicial error. Cooper v. Tranter Manufacturing, Inc. (1966), 4 Mich App 71; Britten v. Updyke (1959), 357 Mich 466.

Affirmed.

Quinn and McGregor, JJ., concurred.

*

CLS 1961, § 750.356 (Stat Ann 1965 Cum Supp §'28.588).

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

*315 T. G. Kavanagh, P. J.

On March 16, 1965, defendant was in charge of a souvenir store at the base of the twin towers in the Irish Ilills district of southern Michigan. The complainant and his wife were visiting the area and stopped into the souvenir store. When he returned home complainant changed his clothes and noticed that his wallet containing $130 was missing.

Meanwhile, defendant had found a wallet which had been left on the counter and had told his employer that he would recognize the' owner when he came to claim it. Defendant testified that a man did come and claim the wallet and he gave it to that man because he thought he was the owner.

About 15 minutes later complainant returned to the store and requested the wallet. Defendant denied having seen complainant’s wallet, according to his testimony because he thought complainant was playing a joke on him and because the wallet he had seen had been returned to the rightful owner. Defendant was charged with larceny by conversion. *

At trial, defendant produced two witnesses to testify as to his reputation. Upon objection by the prosecutor the court ruled that these witnesses could not be questioned further because their testimony did not relate defendant’s reputation in the community where he currently resided.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, judgment was rendered accordingly and defendant appealed.

During the trial counsel for defendant was permitted to question two witnesses in detail regarding defendant’s reputation for honesty. The testimony of both was favorable to defendant. Moreover, both witnesses whom defendant’s counsel was not permitted to question regarding reputation, stated for the record, before objection was made, that defend *316 ant’s reputation was good. These statements were not stricken from the record. Consequently, refusal to admit further testimony by these witnesses was not prejudicial to defendant. This court will not reverse for a new trial unless there was prejudicial error. Cooper v. Tranter Manufacturing, Inc. (1966), 4 Mich App 71; Britten v. Updyke (1959), 357 Mich 466.

Affirmed.

Quinn and McGregor, JJ., concurred.

*

CLS 1961, § 750.356 (Stat Ann 1965 Cum Supp §'28.588).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 N.W.2d 894, 7 Mich. App. 314, 1967 Mich. App. LEXIS 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wahl-michctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack