People v. Winterheld

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Winterheld

115 N.W.2d 80, 366 Mich. 428

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 17, 1962

DocketDocket 69, Calendar 47,955

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 115 N.W.2d 80 (People v. Winterheld) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Winterheld, 115 N.W.2d 80, 366 Mich. 428 (Mich. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

On Rehearing.

Dethmers, J.

Defendants’ convictions of breaking and entering in the nighttime were affirmed by this *429 Court on April 12, 1960. As will appear from our opinion, reported at 359 Mich 467, involved was the question of admissibility in a criminal case in a court of this State of evidence obtained in another State by officers of that State, through a search and seizure unlawful in both that and this State. We held that the exclusionary rule did not extend to those circumstances. In holding that a Federal question was not presented, reference was made to Wolf v. Colorado, 338 US 25 (69 S Ct 1359, 93 L ed 1782), and other cases.

Since then, on June 19, 1961, the supreme court of the United States handed down its decision in Mapp v. State of Ohio, 367 US 643 (81 S Ct 1684, 6 L ed 2d 1081, 84 ALR2d 933), overruling Wolf. In view of that decision, this Court on September 21, 1961, granted defendants’ motion for leave to file a delayed application for rehearing and on November 30, 1961, granted their motion for rehearing.

As now submitted, on rehearing, we conclude, in accord with the holding in Mapp, that the evidence in question should not have been admitted. In consequence, the order denying motion to suppress and the convictions are reversed, the sentences thereon set aside, and the case remanded for new trial.

Carr, C. J., and Kelly, Black, Kavanagh, Souris, and Otis M. Smith, JJ., concurred. Adams, J., did not sit.

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

On Rehearing.

Dethmers, J.

Defendants’ convictions of breaking and entering in the nighttime were affirmed by this *429 Court on April 12, 1960. As will appear from our opinion, reported at 359 Mich 467, involved was the question of admissibility in a criminal case in a court of this State of evidence obtained in another State by officers of that State, through a search and seizure unlawful in both that and this State. We held that the exclusionary rule did not extend to those circumstances. In holding that a Federal question was not presented, reference was made to Wolf v. Colorado, 338 US 25 (69 S Ct 1359, 93 L ed 1782), and other cases.

Since then, on June 19, 1961, the supreme court of the United States handed down its decision in Mapp v. State of Ohio, 367 US 643 (81 S Ct 1684, 6 L ed 2d 1081, 84 ALR2d 933), overruling Wolf. In view of that decision, this Court on September 21, 1961, granted defendants’ motion for leave to file a delayed application for rehearing and on November 30, 1961, granted their motion for rehearing.

As now submitted, on rehearing, we conclude, in accord with the holding in Mapp, that the evidence in question should not have been admitted. In consequence, the order denying motion to suppress and the convictions are reversed, the sentences thereon set aside, and the case remanded for new trial.

Carr, C. J., and Kelly, Black, Kavanagh, Souris, and Otis M. Smith, JJ., concurred. Adams, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 N.W.2d 80, 366 Mich. 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-winterheld-mich-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack