DocketNumber: Docket No. 8101
Citation Numbers: 28 Mich. App. 470, 184 N.W.2d 486, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1203
Judges: Burns, Fitzgerald, Holbrook
Filed Date: 12/4/1970
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/18/2024
The defendant appeals from a non-jury conviction of the offense of larceny in a building.
Defendant’s first claim is that the people failed to make a specific showing of intent. There was sufficient evidence in this case upon which an inference of intent could be based. People v. Dugger (1968), 14 Mich App 270; People v. Gollman (1966), 3 Mich App 463; People v. Clark (1967), 6 Mich App 526.
Defendant also claims that admission of the two men’s suits alleged to have been stolen was improper for the reason that the suits were identified at trial by their serial number and there was no evidence that anyone had written down the serial number at the time of defendant’s arrest. Admis
Defendant further claims that he was deprived of a fair trial because of certain remarks made by the trial judge. A review of the entire transcript shows that on three occasions during the trial the trial judge was somewhat abrupt and impatient with the defendant. The record shows that this abruptness and impatience was precipitated by defendant’s refusal to accept the aid of counsel who had already been appointed by the court. However, the judge’s remarks can, in no manner, be deemed to be prejudicial. On the contrary, it appears that they were the result of the trial judge’s concern over the defendant’s possible self-prejudice by waiver of counsel. Defendant makes no showing as to how he was prejudiced by those remarks.
Motion to affirm is granted.
MCLA § 750.360 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.592).