Semon v. People

Oscar Semon v. The People

Semon v. People, 3 N.W. 304 (Mich. 1879)

Court: Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: October 30, 1879
Judges: Campbell, Other
Citations: 3 N.W. 30442 Mich. 1411879 Mich. LEXIS 729

Headnotes

Bastardy — Proof beyond “reasonable doubt.** Bastardy proceedings are special and not strictly criminal, and the judgment only involves civil consequences. The requirement that a jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused before they can convict, is a principle of criminal jurisprudence only, and its application is determined by the nature of the prosecution and not the character of the act. It does not apply to bastardy cases.

Summary

Error to Allegan. Bastardy. Defendant brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Campbell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Campbell, C. J.

The only error set up in this cause, which is a bastardy case, is that the court below denied a request to charge the jury that they should not find against the respondent below unless the testimony satisfied them beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt, and did *142 charge them that they might be satisfied by a clear preponderance of evidence.

The nature of these proceedings was explained in Cross v. People, 8 Mich., 118 , as not criminal in the proper sense of the term, but special and peculiar. The judgment, if it can be properly called a judgment, involves none but civil consequences. We do not think the rule holding it necessary to establish misconduct beyond- a reasonable doubt is one which needs any extension. It is very proper where a person is subjected to criminal punishment, and is well rooted in criminal jurisprudence. But it is the nature of the prosecution and not the character of the act which authorizes its application. We held in Elliott v. Van Buren, 33 Mich., 49 , that when a criminal act came in controversy in a civil cause, the rule did not apply. We think the principle of that case governs this, and that there was no error in the rulings below.

Judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Bowerman v. MacDonald427 N.W.2d 477 (Mich. 1988)
Huggins v. Rahfeldt269 N.W.2d 286 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)
Artibee v. Cheboygan Circuit Judge243 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. 1976)
Harley v. Ionia Circuit Judge104 N.W. 21 (Mich. 1905)
Pridemore v. Williams282 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)
Artibee v. Cheboygan Circuit Judge221 N.W.2d 225 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974)

Most recent

Bowerman v. MacDonald427 N.W.2d 477 (Mich. 1988)
Pridemore v. Williams282 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)
Huggins v. Rahfeldt269 N.W.2d 286 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)
Artibee v. Cheboygan Circuit Judge243 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. 1976)
Artibee v. Cheboygan Circuit Judge221 N.W.2d 225 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974)
Houfek v. Shafer151 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Elliott v. Van Buren, 33 Mich. 49 (1875)	61

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list