From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Glumb

Michigan Court of Appeals
Nov 26, 1969
174 N.W.2d 83 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)

Opinion

Docket No. 5,823.

Decided November 26, 1969.

Appeal from Wayne, James N. Canham, J. Submitted Division 2 October 17, 1969, at Detroit. (Docket No. 5,823.) Decided November 26, 1969.

Christopher Glumb was convicted of larceny in a building. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Arthur N. Bishop, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Charles Burke, for defendant on appeal.

Before: LESINSKI, C.J., and J.H. GILLIS and DANHOF, JJ.


Defendant and a confederate, Doreen Carlisle, were convicted by a jury of larceny in a building. The only question on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.

CL 1948, § 750.360 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.592).

The sole witness, an experienced security officer for Montgomery Ward, testified that she saw Doreen Carlisle pick up two boxes of Christmas lights and hand them to the defendant who put them in a large shopping bag. The witness testified further that she saw the defendant and Miss Carlisle, who carried the shopping bag, pass two cash registers and walk out of the store together without paying for the Christmas lights.

It is our opinion that the record contains sufficient evidence from which the jury could find the defendant's guilt established beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Mays (1969), 19 Mich. App. 588; People v. Moss (1969), 16 Mich. App. 295.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Glumb

Michigan Court of Appeals
Nov 26, 1969
174 N.W.2d 83 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)
Case details for

People v. Glumb

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. GLUMB

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 26, 1969

Citations

174 N.W.2d 83 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)
174 N.W.2d 83

Citing Cases

People v. Thomas

In People v Glumb, in affirming a jury verdict of larceny in a building, this Court permitted a jury to infer…