Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit, George W. Crockett, Jr., J.
Bronson, P. J., and Bashara and M. F. Cavanagh, JJ. M. F. Cavanagh, J., Concurring and Dissenting. Bronson, P. J., Dissenting.
1. -- Receiving Stolen Property -- Guilty Knowledge -- Inferences.
Guilty knowledge may be inferred from facts and circumstances brought out at trial; a defendant's possession of a recently stolen automobile with a damaged ignition and the defendant's false statement that he had the ignition key are sufficient for a finding that the defendant had knowledge that the automobile was stolen.
2. Witnesses -- -- Indorsed Witnesses -- Failure to Produce -- Preserving Question -- Motion for New Trial.
The issue whether a trial court's failure to require production of an indorsed witness resulted in reversible error should not be reviewed by an appellate court unless a motion for a new trial raising the question was made in the trial court.
Opinion of M. F. Cavanagh, J.
3. Witnesses -- -- Indorsed Witnesses -- Failure to Produce -- Preserving Question -- Objections -- Remand.
The requirements for preserving the issue of a trial court's failure to require the production of an indorsed witness are met where an objection is made at trial and a hearing is held on the issue of due diligence to produce the witness or on the cumulativeness of the witness's testimony; a remand for further hearing on the issue of cumulativeness is not necessary where the record supports the Conclusion that the trial court ruled in the defendant's favor on the issue of due diligence and drew the inference that the witness's testimony would have been unfavorable to the prosecution.
Opinion of Bronson, P. J.
4. Witnesses -- -- Indorsed Witnesses -- Failure to Produce -- Preserving Question -- Objections.
A motion for a new trial is not required to preserve for appeal the issue of a prosecutor's failure to produce an indorsed witness where the defendant objects at ...