the Court affirmed a conviction for conspiracy on the basis of circumstantial evidence where the police seized drugs and discovered the defendants in proximity after surveillance that had revealed the defendants and others frequently arriving at the premises, staying a short time, employing a ritual to obtain admittance, and leaving the premises in what appeared to be a narcotic stupor
How later courts described this case
- the Court affirmed a conviction for conspiracy on the basis of circumstantial evidence where the police seized drugs and discovered the defendants in proximity after surveillance that had revealed the defendants and others frequently arriving at the premises, staying a short time, employing a ritual to obtain admittance, and leaving the premises in what appeared to be a narcotic stupor
- issue of waiver of objection to ruling on impeachment by witness’s failure to take stand
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
T. E. Brennan, J.
Defendant was convicted, along with five others, of possession of heroin; conspiracy to possess heroin; and control of heroin.
The conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Court of Appeals, Holbrook, J., writing an extensive opinion treating nine issues raised in great detail. The other members of the appellate panel concurred. People v Iaconis (People v Bercheny), 29 Mich App 443 (1971).
We granted leave to appeal. This writer and my Brother Williams dissented from grant of leave.
Nothing presented in the briefs or oral arguments persuades me that the decision of the Court of Appeals was clearly erroneous; or that the subject matter of the appeal involves legal principles of major significance to the jurisprudence of the state; or that the decision of the Court of Appeals is in conflict with other decisions of that Court or decisions of this Court. GCR 1963, 853.1.
The case of State v McGee, 473 SW2d 686 (Mo, 1971), is distinguishable on its facts. McGee involved marijuana in containers; here we have heroin in open piles. In McGee , the defendant lived in the house, his presence therefore did not raise the same *435 inference as in the instant case. In McGee , the table was cluttered with objects unrelated to narcotics. The description of the table in this case whs of a far different character.
I therefore adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case, and vote to affirm conviction for the reasons^stated therein.
Black, Adams, Swainson, and Williams, JJ., concurred with T. E. Brennan, J.
T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., concurred in the result.