People v. Flaherty

14 Citing cases

  1. People v. Fisher

    220 Mich. App. 133 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 20 times
    In Fisher, the obstruction charge required proof that defendant intended to hinder the due course of justice in the case pending in Wayne County, and the defendant's act of inciting perjury was intended to have an effect on the proceedings in Wayne County.

    While the Michigan statute does not use the words "effects" or "results," it has been similarly interpreted. In People v Flaherty, 165 Mich. App. 113; 418 N.W.2d 695 (1987), this Court applied the statute and affirmed the defendant's conviction of larceny by false pretenses, MCL 750.218; MSA 28.415, rejecting the defendant's argument that insufficient evidence was presented regarding venue because he never set foot in the county where he was tried. The defendant's insurance agency was located in Macomb County and he was tried in St. Clair County.

  2. People v. Houthoofd

    487 Mich. 568 (Mich. 2010)   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Houthoofd, the defendant was tried in Saginaw County, which on appeal was determined not to be the proper county for purposes of venue.

    In the present case, the Court of Appeals summarized the facts and holdings in Flaherty and Fisher: People v Flaherty, 165 Mich App 113; 418 NW2d 695 (1987).People v Fisher, 220 Mich App 133; 559 NW2d 318 (1996).

  3. People v. Webbs

    263 Mich. App. 531 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 26 times
    Affirming the circuit court's dismissal of a criminal case because venue was improper

    "The crime of larceny by false pretenses requires (1) a false representation as to an existing fact, (2) knowledge by the defendant of the falsity of the representation, (3) use of the false representation with an intent to deceive, and (4) detrimental reliance by the victim on the false representation." People v. Flaherty, 165 Mich App 113, 119; 418 NW2d 695 (1987). Defendant moved to dismiss the charge on the ground that venue was improper in Grand Traverse County because all the acts in perpetration of the offense occurred in Wayne County. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding no evidence that any act done in perpetration of the offense occurred in Grand Traverse County. The trial court reasoned that defendant applied for the loan and received the money in Wayne County and that the only possible connection of the offense to Grand Traverse County was the possibility that defendant received the information to carry out the offense from an application that James Hardy submitted to a lender in Grand Traverse County.

  4. McLean v. Romanowski

    Civil Action No. 13-CV-14116 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2014)

    "The crime of larceny by false pretenses requires (1) a false representation as to an existing fact, (2) knowledge by the defendant of the falsity of the representation, (3) use of the false representation with an intent to deceive, and (4) detrimental reliance by the victim on the false representation." [People v. Webbs, 263 Mich.App 531, 532 n 1; 689 NW2d 163 (2004), quoting People v. Flaherty, 165 Mich.App 113, 119; 418 NW2d 695 (1987), overruled in part on other grounds; see also MCL 750.218.]Based on the evidence, a rational trier of fact could find: (1) that defendant falsely represented to Stocks that (a) he had a contract with Orange County Choppers and that the $35,000 loan would be paid off in full by October, (b) he had transferred title to the Impala, and (c) the Impala was in "mint" condition and was worth $35,000;

  5. Hilliard v. Schmidt

    231 Mich. App. 316 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 25 times
    In Hilliard, the plaintiff complained that the trial court's in camera interview of the parties' older son, whose custody was not in dispute, violated due process because it went beyond ascertaining their younger son's preference.

    Statements offered to show that they were made or to show their effect on the listener are not hearsay. People v. Flaherty, 165 Mich. App. 113, 122; 418 N.W.2d 695 (1987). Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion.

  6. People v. Dunham

    220 Mich. App. 268 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the victim's statements made after an eight—or nine-month delay based on her "well-grounded fear" of the defendant

    Further, it appears the evidence concerning defendant's conduct toward the victim was relevant to explain her delay in reporting the alleged abuse, and at least some of the evidence concerning conduct toward the victim's mother was relevant to the mother's reason for leaving the marital home, an issue addressed by defendant. See People v Flaherty, 165 Mich. App. 113, 122; 418 N.W.2d 695 (1987); People v Abernathy, 153 Mich. App. 567, 573; 396 N.W.2d 436 (1985). Finally, defendant elicited the testimony to which he now objects. IV

  7. People v. Nowicki

    213 Mich. App. 383 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 16 times

    The issue before this Court is whether the court may order reimbursement in the first place.People v Cousins, 196 Mich. App. 715; 493 N.W.2d 512 (1992); People v Jones, 182 Mich. App. 125; 451 N.W.2d 525 (1989); People v Flaherty, 165 Mich. App. 113; 418 N.W.2d 695 (1987). MCR 6.005(C) provides for a defendant's contribution to the cost of providing a lawyer where the defendant "is able to pay part of the cost of a lawyer."

  8. People v. Malach

    202 Mich. App. 266 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 19 times
    Discussing prior case law and observing that "[t]he distinction between the two offenses . . . depends entirely upon the intent of the victim: if the owner of the goods intends to keep title but part with possession, the crime is larceny; if the owner intends to part with both title and possession, albeit for the wrong reasons, the crime is false pretenses

    Obtaining money by false pretenses, on the other hand, requires a knowing false representation of fact, done with intent to deceive, which causes detrimental reliance on the representation. In re People v Jory, 443 Mich. 403, 412; 505 N.W.2d 228 (1993); People v Flaherty, 165 Mich. App. 113, 119; 418 N.W.2d 695 (1987); see also MCL 750.218; MSA 28.415. False pretenses and larceny are defined in separate chapters of the Penal Code. See MCL 750.356 et seq.; MSA 28.588 et seq. (chapter LII — Larceny); compare MCL 750.218; MSA 28.415 (chapter XXXVI — False Pretenses and False Representation). We acknowledge that obtaining money by false pretenses is often referred to as "larceny by false pretenses."

  9. People v. Kelley

    439 N.W.2d 315 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 2 times

    When the mental state for the commission of a crime requires a showing of a specific intent, the voluntary intoxication of the accused may operate to relieve the accused of criminal responsibility by negating the intent element. People v Sowders, 164 Mich. App. 36, 43-44; 417 N.W.2d 78 (1987); People v Flaherty, 165 Mich. App. 113, 123-124; 418 N.W.2d 695 (1987). Otherwise, the accused's state of voluntary intoxication is no defense to a general intent offense.

  10. People v. Greenberg

    176 Mich. App. 296 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 19 times

    (1) a false representation as to an existing fact, (2) knowledge by the defendant of the falsity of the representation, (3) use of the false representation with an intent to deceive, and (4) detrimental reliance by the victim on the false representation. [ People v Flaherty, 165 Mich. App. 113, 119; 418 N.W.2d 695 (1987).]