Goldman v. Anderson
625 F.2d 135
FACTS
-Petitioner is an inmate in MI as a result of conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny of a real estate office.
-His target was the bar next door.
-Nothing was stolen from either place.
-Appealing the conviction for habeas corpus relief to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Issue: If the petitioner did not intend to commit larceny of the real estate office but rather the adjacent bar can conviction be overturned for a denial of due process resulting from insufficient evidence to support the conviction?
Holding: No. Surrounding circumstances supports the fact that the defendant was present in the real estate office, as a witness testified, and he entertained the necessary intent to commit larceny.
Whether he intended to commit larceny to the real estate office or within the bar is immaterial.
-When the defendant was inside the real estate office, attempting to break into the bar, his intent, as to time and place, to commit larceny therein was present in his mind.
RULES
-Under Michigan law, intent to commit larceny may be inferred from the totality of circumstances disclosed by the testimony. Such intent may be inferred from the nature, time, or place of the defendant's acts before and during the breaking and entering.
Link to case: Openjurist.org - Goldman v. Anderson
625 F.2d 135
FACTS
-Petitioner is an inmate in MI as a result of conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny of a real estate office.
-His target was the bar next door.
-Nothing was stolen from either place.
-Appealing the conviction for habeas corpus relief to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Issue: If the petitioner did not intend to commit larceny of the real estate office but rather the adjacent bar can conviction be overturned for a denial of due process resulting from insufficient evidence to support the conviction?
Holding: No. Surrounding circumstances supports the fact that the defendant was present in the real estate office, as a witness testified, and he entertained the necessary intent to commit larceny.
Whether he intended to commit larceny to the real estate office or within the bar is immaterial.
-When the defendant was inside the real estate office, attempting to break into the bar, his intent, as to time and place, to commit larceny therein was present in his mind.
RULES
-Under Michigan law, intent to commit larceny may be inferred from the totality of circumstances disclosed by the testimony. Such intent may be inferred from the nature, time, or place of the defendant's acts before and during the breaking and entering.
Link to case: Openjurist.org - Goldman v. Anderson
No comments:
Post a Comment