People v. Wycoff

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Wycoff

114 N.W. 242, 150 Mich. 449, 1907 Mich. LEXIS 825

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 10, 1907

DocketDocket No. 172

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 114 N.W. 242 (People v. Wycoff) 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. Wycoff, 114 N.W. 242, 150 Mich. 449, 1907 Mich. LEXIS 825 (Mich. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

{after stating the facts). 1. The court instructed the jury that the building where the burglary was committed was a shop, within the meaning of the statute, which reads :

“Every person who shall break and enter, in the nighttime, any office, shop, * * * or factory, * * * with intent to commit * * * larceny, shall be punished,” etc. 3 Comp. Laws, § llSf?.

The instruction was clearly correct. The witnesses spoke of it as “the shop.” It was a shop within “the common and approved usage of the language” (1 Comp. Laws, § 50), and the court very properly told the jury that whether it was technically a shop, or technically a factory, was of no interest to them.

2. Error is alleged upon the ruling of the court in refusing to permit Quinn to answer this question: “I suppose when you took these taps and drills from the shop you intended to return them?” We can hardly understand why counsel should make this point, for the record [451]*451shows that immediately thereafter the court reversed the ruling and permitted the witness to testify that he had no intention to deprive the company of the property and that he so told defendant. The court followed this by correctly instructing the jury on the question of the intent essential to prove the crime.

3. Defendant was present aiding and abetting the crime, and was therefore an accomplice. He was, under the statute of this State (3 Comp. Laws, § 11930), a principal. The statute has abrogated all distinctions between principals and accessories, and between principals in the first and second degrees. He who aids and abets is now a principal.

We find no error in the charge of the court.

The conviction is affirmed.

McAlvay, C. J., and Carpenter, Blair, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

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

Grant, J.

{after stating the facts). 1. The court instructed the jury that the building where the burglary was committed was a shop, within the meaning of the statute, which reads :

“Every person who shall break and enter, in the nighttime, any office, shop, * * * or factory, * * * with intent to commit * * * larceny, shall be punished,” etc. 3 Comp. Laws, § llSf?.

The instruction was clearly correct. The witnesses spoke of it as “the shop.” It was a shop within “the common and approved usage of the language” (1 Comp. Laws, § 50), and the court very properly told the jury that whether it was technically a shop, or technically a factory, was of no interest to them.

2. Error is alleged upon the ruling of the court in refusing to permit Quinn to answer this question: “I suppose when you took these taps and drills from the shop you intended to return them?” We can hardly understand why counsel should make this point, for the record [451]*451shows that immediately thereafter the court reversed the ruling and permitted the witness to testify that he had no intention to deprive the company of the property and that he so told defendant. The court followed this by correctly instructing the jury on the question of the intent essential to prove the crime.

3. Defendant was present aiding and abetting the crime, and was therefore an accomplice. He was, under the statute of this State (3 Comp. Laws, § 11930), a principal. The statute has abrogated all distinctions between principals and accessories, and between principals in the first and second degrees. He who aids and abets is now a principal.

We find no error in the charge of the court.

The conviction is affirmed.

McAlvay, C. J., and Carpenter, Blair, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 N.W. 242, 150 Mich. 449, 1907 Mich. LEXIS 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wycoff-mich-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack