statute states in its entirety: “Any person who shall commit the offense of larceny by stealing from the person of another shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 10 years.” Mich. Com kes clear that the property must be in the possession or immediate presence of the victim. 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>); People v. Johnson, 25 Mich.App. 258, 181
holding that theft from the person is not a crime of violence recognizing that an action will lie for conversion of money when its identification is possible and there is an obligation to deliver the specific money in question or otherwise particularly treat the specific money holding the general rule is that money paid to another under a mistake of fact may be recovered because the money belongs in equity and good conscience to the person who paid it 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 holding that if defendants developed the intent to deprive the victim of his money only after they beat him unconscious theft would constitute larceny from the person but not robbery