context: For the larceny to be "from the person," it is sufficient that property is taken that was in the possession and immediate presence of the victim. Michigan case law since the opinion in Gould makes clear that the property must be in the possession or immediate presence of the victim.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: finding no larceny from the person if the victim is in another room
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., People v. Wallace, 173 Mich.App. 420, 434 N.W.2d 422, 426 (1988) (quoting Criminal Jury Instruction 23:2:01 which says “the property must have been taken from the person of the complainant,” and defines “‘[f]rom the person’ [to] mean[] that the property must have been taken from the body of the complainant or from within his [or her] immediate area of control or immediate presence”); People v. Smith, 68 Mich.App. 551, 243 N.W.2d 681, 683 (1976) (holding that taking money from a victim offering the money out of fear of violence can be larceny from the person because there is no consent and the money was “removed from the actual possession or custody of the person or his immediate pres ence, Viz., the area within his control”); People v. Johnson, 25 Mich.App. 258, 181 N.W.2d 425, 428 (1970) (finding no larceny from the person if the victim is in another room).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 518 N.W.2d 511, 513
citation_b.parenthetical: recognizing that larceny from the person is in the robbery crime-group category for purposes of sentencing in Michigan
citation_b.sentence: See also People v. Eberhardt, 205 Mich.App. 587, 518 N.W.2d 511, 513 (1994) (recognizing that larceny from the person is in the robbery crime-group category for purposes of sentencing in Michigan).