Opinion
Docket No. 8,369.
Decided December 2, 1970.
Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit, Robert E. DeMascio, J. Submitted Division 1 September 22, 1970, at Detroit. (Docket No. 8,369.) Decided December 2, 1970.
Lawrence Gulley was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, Thomas R. Lewis, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Gragg Gardner (by Elliott S. Hall), for defendant on appeal.
Defendant, along with a codefendant, William Cartwright, was tried and convicted by a jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. MCLA § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1970, Cum Supp § 28.305). All of the pertinent facts of this case are set forth in the recent opinion of this court on the appeal of the codefendant. People v. Cartwright (1970), 26 Mich. App. 687.
Defendant's first contention on appeal is that officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. The record shows that police officers observed Gulley and Cartwright walking together a few blocks from the scene of a break-in a short time after it had occurred. The participants in the break-in had been pursued by another police officer who had radioed a description specifying that one participant was wearing a black leather jacket. Defendant Gulley was wearing such a jacket. When approached by the police, Gulley and Cartwright admitted having been together. Gulley was breathing hard but in response to an officer's question denied that he had been running. The officer placed his hand on defendant's chest and felt a rapid heartbeat. Gulley then admitted that he had been running. We believe that these facts constitute the minimum requisites for probable cause to arrest. People v. Suchodolski (1970), 22 Mich. App. 389.
Defendant further contends that there was not sufficient evidence for the jury to find a breaking. Only the slightest force is necessary to constitute a breaking. People v. Davis (1970), 22 Mich. App. 70. An eyewitness testified that the door was forced open by one or both of the men pushing it. The question whether there was a breaking was a question for the jury to resolve, which they did. People v. Garrett (1969), 17 Mich. App. 69.
Affirmed.
All concurred.