Case ID: mich-app_36/html/0705-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEOPLE v. HAYNES
    Criminal Law — Motor Vehicles — Removing Property Valued Over $5 — Elements op Crime — Value.
    The value of articles removed from a motor vehicle is an element of the crime of unlawfully removing property of the value of not less than $5 from a motor vehicle and the failure to prove the value of the goods requires that a defendant’s properly-made motion for a directed verdict of not guilty at the close of the people’s ease be granted (MOLA § 750.356a).
    References for Points in Headnote
    7 Am Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 340.
    50 Am Jur 2d, Larceny § 45 et seg.
    
    Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Elvin L. Davenport, J.
    Submitted Division 1 September 7, 1971, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 11835.)
    Decided October 27, 1971.
    Leave to appeal applied for.
    Lorenzo Haynes was convicted of entering or breaking and entering a motor vehicle for the purpose of stealing or unlawfully removing property of the value of not less than $5. Defendánt appeals.
    Reversed.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William A. Cabalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and John L. Quaine, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      Jack J. Kraisman, for defendant.
    
      Before: Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Bronson, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

Defendant’s non-jury trial resulted in Ms conviction of entering or breaking and entering a motor vehicle for the purpose of stealing or unlawfully removing property of the value of not less than $5, MCLA § 750.356a (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.588 [1]). He was sentenced and he appeals.

At the close of the people’s case, there was no proof of the value of the article defendant removed from the motor vehicle. He moved for a directed verdict of not guilty. The motion was denied, defendant rested and the judge found him guilty.

Defendant attacks his conviction on the ground that the people failed to prove all elements of the offense. The attack is valid and successful, People v. Hanenberg (1936), 274 Mich 698.

Reversed.