Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

03/23/76 PEOPLE v. GALLAGHER

March 23, 1976

PEOPLE
v.
GALLAGHER



Appeal from Wayne, George Wicklund, J.

Leave to appeal applied for.

McGregor, P. J., and Bashara and Allen, JJ. Allen, J., concurred. Bashara, J. (concurring).

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

Opinion of the Court

1. Appeal and Error -- Failure to Support an Issue -- Abandonment of an Issue.

The Court of Appeals will not discuss an issue where a party has failed to brief, present authority, or present policy reasons in substantiation of the issue; failure to support an issue raised on appeal constitutes abandonment of that issue.

2. -- Constitutional Law -- Statutes -- Rebuttable Presumptions -- State of Mind -- Privilege Against Self-Incrimination.

A statutory rebuttable presumption that any dealer in any merchandise or personal property, who fails to make a reasonable inquiry whether the person selling or delivering stolen property to him has a legal right to do so or who buys or receives such property with altered or obliterated identification numbers on any external surface, buys or receives such property knowing it to have been stolen, is not a violation of the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination since there are means of rebutting such state-of-mind presumptions other than by the defendant taking the witness stand, although the other means may not be as effective; different constitutional treatment for state-of-mind presumptions based on the distinction that state-of-mind presumptions can be effectively rebutted only by a defendant's own testimony while fact presumptions can be effectively rebutted by other types of evidence is unwarranted.

3. Courts -- Court of Appeals -- Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeals is an intermediate appellate court and as such it is bound by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court.

4. -- Constitutional Law -- Privilege Against Self-Incrimination -- Rebuttable Presumption -- Jury Instructions.

A defendant's privilege against self-incrimination was not violated by instructions given to the jury which included a reading of a criminal statute containing a rebuttable presumption as to the defendant's knowing, under certain circumstances, that certain property was stolen, although the trial court should have given clearer instructions regarding presumptions, where the statute and its contained presumption have been found constitutional and where any inadequacies contained in the language of the statute were sufficiently remedied by the trial court's subsequent detailed instructions concerning the burden of proof, the presumption of innocence and the defendant's right not to testify in his own behalf.

5. -- Closing Arguments -- Uncontradicted Facts -- Rebuttable Presumptions.

A prosecutor may, in his closing arguments, comment to the jury to the effect that the facts shown were uncontradicted, and a prosecutor's reference to a presumption does not constitute unfair comment on the defendant's failure to take the stand; a defendant cannot ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.