Case Name: PEOPLE v. MAYS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1968-06-03
Citations: 11 Mich. App. 634
Docket Number: Docket No. 4,489
Parties: PEOPLE v. MAYS.
Judges: T. G. Kavanagh, P. J., and Holbrook and Beer, JJ., concurred. :
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 11
Pages: 634–635

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. MAYS.
Criminal Law — Evidence—Larceny from the Person.
, Testimony by complaining, witness that he was sure that a man he pointed out to a police officer had taken his wallet from his pocket, coupled with the testimony of the arresting officer that the defendant was the one pointed out by complainant, held, sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even though the complaining witness at the trial for larceny from the person eould not identify the defendant as the man he had pointed out to the arresting policeman (CL 1948, § 750.357).
References for Points in Headnote
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§ 367, 371-373; 32 Am Jur, Larceny § 135 et seq.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Leonard (Donald S.), J.
Submitted Division 1 May 16, 1968, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 4,489.)
Decided June 3, 1968.
John Mays was convicted of larceny from the person. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengo ski, Solicitor General, William L. Gahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Thomas P.Smith,-Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the'people.
John R. Jones, for defendant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant was convicted in a non-jury trial of larceny from the person and sentenced to a term of 4 to 10 years. He has appealed.
The issue on appeal is whether there was produced at trial evidence sufficient to convince beyond a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt..
The complainant testified that he felt his wallet being removed from his pocket and at that'time he was sure that the man he then pointed out to the police was the man who had removed it.. A1-. though at the trial the complainant- c.ould npt be sure the defendant was the man he had pointed, put, the arresting officer testified that the defendant was the man pointed out.
Thus we find that the record discloses evidence sufficient, if believed by the trier of fact, to shpport the finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doiiBt.
Affirmed.
T. G. Kavanagh, P. J., and Holbrook and Beer, JJ., concurred. :
CL 1948, § 750.357 (Stat Ana 1954 Rev § 28.589).