Summary
In People v Brown, 20 Mich. App. 521; 174 N.W.2d 291 (1969), the Court upheld the conviction where defendant was arrested with a pistol in his hand, the police had heard the report of a weapon and one of the participants of the scuffle which the defendant was watching requested someone to shoot the other participant.
Summary of this case from People v. FlinnonOpinion
Docket No. 4,251.
Decided December 8, 1969.
Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit, Samuel H. Olsen, J. Submitted Division 1 December 2, 1969, at Detroit. (Docket No. 4,251.) Decided December 8, 1969.
Edward L. Brown was convicted of carrying a firearm with unlawful intent. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Leonard Meyers, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Stuart Hubbell, for defendant on appeal.
Before: R.B. BURNS, P.J., and HOLBROOK and V.J. BRENNAN, JJ.
Defendant appeals from his conviction of carrying a firearm or dangerous weapon with unlawful intent. CL 1948, § 750.226 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.423). His sole contention is that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime charged.
At trial two Detroit policemen testified that they heard a shot and ran in the direction of the report. They observed two men, Powers and Payne, fighting near a bar called the Purple Onion. Defendant was seen standing nearby the combatants with a partially loaded automatic pistol in his hand. A witness, Mr. Payne, one of the participants in the fight, stated that he heard Mr. Powers, the man with whom he was fighting, yell to someone nearby to shoot him (Payne).
Based on the facts contained in the record, it was permissible to infer criminal intent. People v. Griffin (1889), 77 Mich. 585; People v. Gollman (1966), 3 Mich. App. 463; and People v. Dugger (1968), 14 Mich. App. 270. Furthermore, in cases tried without a jury the trial judge is the trier of the facts, and this Court will not reverse him unless evidence clearly preponderates in a direction opposite to his finding of fact. See People v. Doris White (1965), 2 Mich. App. 104; and 2 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law and Procedure (2d ed), § 630, p 815.
Affirmed.