Question Presented
Was Vandenbosh’s gesture and oral statements sufficient to satisfy Michigan's armed robbery statute, which requires a person to lead another person to reasonably believe they have a dangerous weapon or who represents orally or otherwise that they are in possession of a dangerous weapon, when Vanderbosh patted his lower back and stated that he was “handy with a hammer?”
Is the police officers testimony as a lay person admissible under Michigan’s Rule 701, which requires testimony to be a rationally based perception and helpful to determining a fact in issue, when the police apprehended Vandenbosh and directly observed him smelling like alcohol and wobbling?
Brief answer
Yes, under Michigan’s armed robbery statute a defendant does not need a dangerous weapon to satisfy the statute. The defendant may only have an …show more content…
He said he has hit “hard times” and “felt frustrated” with his life. A supplemental police report stated that police responded to a 9-1-1 call about a purse-snatching. Vandenbosh was spotted with an naturally puffed out stomach and hands both beneath his sweatshirt. Police officers approached the Vandenbosh and and was ordered to lift up his hands. When he did, a purse fell out of his sweatshirt. Upon miranda warnings and pat-down, nothing bur his wallet and car keys were found. The police observed that the suspect smelled of alcohol and seemed a bit wobbly. Vandenbosh denied threatening the victim and denied having a weapon or tool. he said that he “Keeps that stuff in the truck.” When asked why he patted his lower back, he responded, “I think I thought I had my hammer back there because I have it there while I work.” Police found Vandenbosh’s tools in his toolbox in his pickup truck parked near where they arrested him. The police and prosecution now seem to accept that Vandenbosh did not actually have a hammer or other tool with him when he grabbed the victim’s
Was Vandenbosh’s gesture and oral statements sufficient to satisfy Michigan's armed robbery statute, which requires a person to lead another person to reasonably believe they have a dangerous weapon or who represents orally or otherwise that they are in possession of a dangerous weapon, when Vanderbosh patted his lower back and stated that he was “handy with a hammer?”
Is the police officers testimony as a lay person admissible under Michigan’s Rule 701, which requires testimony to be a rationally based perception and helpful to determining a fact in issue, when the police apprehended Vandenbosh and directly observed him smelling like alcohol and wobbling?
Brief answer
Yes, under Michigan’s armed robbery statute a defendant does not need a dangerous weapon to satisfy the statute. The defendant may only have an …show more content…
He said he has hit “hard times” and “felt frustrated” with his life. A supplemental police report stated that police responded to a 9-1-1 call about a purse-snatching. Vandenbosh was spotted with an naturally puffed out stomach and hands both beneath his sweatshirt. Police officers approached the Vandenbosh and and was ordered to lift up his hands. When he did, a purse fell out of his sweatshirt. Upon miranda warnings and pat-down, nothing bur his wallet and car keys were found. The police observed that the suspect smelled of alcohol and seemed a bit wobbly. Vandenbosh denied threatening the victim and denied having a weapon or tool. he said that he “Keeps that stuff in the truck.” When asked why he patted his lower back, he responded, “I think I thought I had my hammer back there because I have it there while I work.” Police found Vandenbosh’s tools in his toolbox in his pickup truck parked near where they arrested him. The police and prosecution now seem to accept that Vandenbosh did not actually have a hammer or other tool with him when he grabbed the victim’s