*1 285 1970] HUDSON PEOPLE Opinion op the Court op Presumption Innocence. Law — 1. Criminal must be in a criminal presumption of innocence lip service. paid mere presumption is not to the applied; op Proop. Law —Burden 2. Criminal properly on case cannot rest guilty in a A criminal verdict evidence, on be based but should preponderance of the mere doubt. leaves no reasonable — Participation Bobbery — — in Crime Seasonable 3. Evidence Doubt. robbery unarmed was reversed where conviction of
Defendant’s presence which his at the bar behind the defendant admitted place, denied the crime scene when a stated that he ran from the of the crime and commotion, robbery, began, preceding neither of the two complainants identify participant could the defendant as a seeing him in in- crime nor before the remember cident, testimony and of one the admitted robbers directly implicating evidence replete contradic- crime the robber’s tions, the defendant’s because evidence did establish guilt beyond a doubt. reasonable Beperences por Points in Headnotes [3, [5] [1] [2] Presumption 30 29 Am Jur 29 Am Jur Am Jur 29 Am Jur Am Jur 2d, 2d, Appeal 2d, 2d, Evidence 2d, innocence Evidence Evidence Evidence §§ as evidence. §§ § Error 1163, Í168,1170-1172. §§ 125. 10, 12, § 115-134. 224-226. 152 ALB 626. by Churchill, Dissent Robbery Robbery Evidence—Participation —Unarmed — in Crime —Sufficiency. *2 Testimony money a witness that he saw the of defendant robbery victims, testimony the another one witness of of from complainants, saw the in that she a with the defendant scuffle and the a third witness that he saw the of defend- standing robbery ant soon the near the bar behind which after robbery place that he took the and from participation was show to sufficient defendant’s charged. in the unarmed Appeal Scope op Review. 5. Criminal Law — and Error — proof appellate an is to determine task court of if of alleged presented jury, to the crime are elements of weigh testimony. to Appeal Monroe, Kelley, Jr., James J. J. 1970, at Submitted Division November Lansing. (Docket No. Decided December 9015.) Leave to 384 Mich appeal granted 7,1971. May
Booker T. was Hudson, convicted unarmed Jr., robbery. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
Frank Kelley, J. Robert A. General, Attorney Derengoski, James J. Rostash, General, Solicitor John Whitehouse, R. Prosecuting Attorney, and Assistant for Prosecuting Attorney, people. Costello,
Patricia appeal. defendant on Before: J., Fitzgerald P. and and Bronson, JJ. Churchill,* P. charged Defendant was and con Bronson,
victed by a jury of unarmed sen robbery1 tenced to to 15 years prison. Defendant 2-1/2 * judge, sitting Circuit on Appeals assignment. the Court of (Stat
1MCLA 750.530 Ann 1954 Rev 28.798). § § v. Hudson appeals alleging his conviction, the evidence presented guilt was insufficient to establish his be- yond a reasonable doubt.
Our standard review that announced Peo- ple Spann (1966), 451: reviewing jury
“In a determination in a criminal appeal, lightly, jury this Court must tread as the testimony, viewed the all witnesses, heard superior position was in a ity to determine the credibil- passed of all that before Therefore, it. if alleged presented of the elements the crimes jury, to the its verdict must stand.” Defendant’s in the crime is an obvious prove beyond element which the must reasonable doubt. briefly
The facts of the can instant case stated. *3 complainants, migrant The two Mexican workers, Michigan, evening had driven to Monroe, on the July stopped 28, 1969, and had aat local bar. As complainants departed they from the bar, were building led they to the rear of the where were held, by group people. beaten, robbed of six or seven complainants At neither trial, of the was able to identify participant the defendant as a in the crime they they nor could remember if had seen the de- fendant in the bar before the incident. Defendant present admitted that he was at the bar when the incident occurred, but denied crime. Defendant testified that he ran from the scene when the commotion started. only testimony directly implicated
The de- fendant in the crime was that of Charles Garrett, participant an admitted in the crime. Mr. Garrett’s replete with contradictions, as evi- following portions denced transcript: of the any money you Did Booker “Q. see anyone? “A. I did. Yes, you person Hud- Booker know which And “Q. do money from?
son I know his name. “A. don’t involved were Mexicans “Q. there two Well, weren’t there? this, was. Yes,
“A. there younger one? other “Q. And one than “A. Yes. one? the other And is smaller than
“Q. “A. Yes. one you if was the remember “Q. one—do Which one taller one? short or the The “A. shorter one. one, older one? That’s also
“Q. shorter isn’t too, the older it? man, “A. Yes. get you it?
“Q. “A. much did out of How get any. I didn’t get any? “Q. didn’t You “A. No. money? any you
“Q. Did Booker Hudson with see “A. I any, him no. I recall didn’t see don’t seeing might know. him. He I don’t have had some. participated robbery, Mr.
“Q. Who all in this Traffic Garrett? Who was back there behind Bar? Jam you “A. I I don’t can tell what heard. know who all was back there. *4 you “Q. But there, saw Hudson Booker back
though? “A. Yes. you anyone?
“Q. Did see him hit seeing No. I “A. don’t recall him. too It was dark to even see that. you being see one of the Mexicans hit
“Q. Hid at all? say, Like I too dark. it was “A. you “Q. But still know sure that Booker Hud- was son back there?
“A. Yes. any money know “Q. You don’t whether was taken you? you? not, or do Or do only “A. I know I I what heard. When was back past. running [defendant] he I know don’t running whether he was from the commotion back there or what. you
“Q. Did Booker see Hudson around the older Mexican, the shorter Mexican?
“A. Yes. you doing anything “Q. Did see him older, to the shorter Mexican? say, “A. running- When I saw like I him, he was past got running there he was towards me —when though running and it looked as he was to this older
guy just and ran into me. It looked like he was running down the street and run into the old man and the old man ran into me and he went around, see? Jb w .V.
íF “Q. You didn’t see Booker Hudson with his hands anyone’s pockets, you? did might pocket, “A. He of had his hands in his though pocketbook, looked as you he had his hand in his saying- I’m not know, had he his hands in pocket.” his An exhaustive review of the record establishes present that the defendant was at the scene yet of the crime, par- neither his direct nor indirect ticipation jury in it was established. Thus, the presence asked to infer from the defendant’s at the flight participant. his from it that he was a *5 285 Mich op Opinion the Court prose- presumption in criminal of innocence lip-service. paid ought If not be mere cutions ring any meaning, have hollow to doctrine aphorism, jurisprudential meaningless it must aas Judge writing applied. As Chief Lesinski, supra, People Spann, p aptly majority v. in stated: system presumption under our innocence of “The expression. philosophical jurisprudence is no idle of presumption as Adams surrounds This completely thoroughly the hardest cloak of as a proof beyond a reasonable to vulnerable steel possibility of innocence reasonable
doubt. It is the
herein
involvement
Adams’
which can be attached to
Adams.
causes us to find for
that
people
by
quantum proof
in
of
adduced
“The
of
preponderance
may
level
a
this ease
reach the
of
proof
of
not reach the level
evidence,
does
Supreme
beyond
Court
a reasonable doubt. As the
People
(1957),
aptly
348 Mich
v.
stated
Gadson
so
through
speaking
Justice
Dethmebs:
“
guilty in
case
‘A verdict
a criminal
cannot
properly
preponderance
on a mere
evi-
rest
no
dence,
that leaves
but should be based on
Sligh
guilt. People
[1882],
v.
reasonable doubt of
People Mayrand
225;
48 Mich
54;
[1942],
v.
People
Franczyk
peo-
v.
[1946],
Fitzgerald, Hackard Evans I am unable (dissenting). to agree Churchill, opinion con- majority the defendant’s viction should be reversed.
Two men left a late at night. They were taken back of the bar building group men *6 were robbed currency. beaten and Defend- ant was there. Charles Garrett that he testified saw money defendant from the smaller of the two victims. Carolyn Page testified that she saw defend- ant scuffle. Jacob Hood testified that soon after the standing near the Hood, bar and he, defendant’s hand.
It is not for to weigh us testimony, rather to determine if elements of the crime alleged was presented to the jury. Spann v. (1966), App 444; People Cunningham (1969), Mich App 699. Applying standard, this vote to affirm.
EVANS HACKARD Passenger — Negligence — — 1. Automobiles Guest Common-Law Negligence. Gross gross negligence” “Common-law is unrelated to an action guest passenger against his host driver. [3] [1] [2] 514, 994, 1002. 8 Am 8 Am 8 Am Jur Jur Jur 2d References 2d, 2d, Automobiles and Automobiles and Automobiles and Points Highway Highway Highway in Headnotes Traffic Traffic Traffic §§ §§ §§ 493, 496, 465, 469,