TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cummins v. People

William Cummins, impleaded with Michael Moore and George Linden v. The People

Cummins v. People, 3 N.W. 305 (Mich. 1879)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 30, 1879
Judges
Marston, Other
Citations
3 N.W. 30542 Mich. 1421879 Mich. LEXIS 730
Cited by 29 2 descriptions by later courts
Headnotes
Burglary — Presumption in favor of charge — Penalty. In a prosecution for burglary it was shown that the stolen property was found near the respondent and anbther person in a barn where they slept on the night it was taken, and that when the arrest tood place, the other person resisted and escaped. Held that the resistance and flight might properly be commented on by the prosecuting attorney and considered by the jury. Where the bill of exceptions does -not set forth all the evidence, or purport to give its substance, the charge must be presumed, to be warranted by the evidence. Where a penalty is within the statutory limit, it is not reviewable on the ground of being-excessive.
Summary
Error to Wayne. Burglary. Criminal information charging George < Linden, Michael- Moore, William Cummins and John Seipher with breaking into the dwelling house of Anne McFarlin, in the township of Hamtramck, and feloniously taking therefrom a bottle of sherry and a lot of cigars. Cummins was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the State Prison for seven years.

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

Opinion of the Court — Marston

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

Marston, J.

We do not discover any errSr in the record'in this case. The evidence tended to show that Cummins and Seipher slept together in a barn on the night of the burglary, and that in close. proximity to them were found the stolen articles, and that when the officers made the arrest Seipher resisted arrest and escaped. We are of opinion that on the trial of Cummins under such circumstances, the resistance and flight of Seipher was a proper matter to be commented upon by the prosecuting attorney in his argument and considered by the jury.

It also appeared that at the time of the arrest the coat of one of the parties was missing, and complaint is now made of the charge of the court relating to that matter. Thé bill of exceptions does not set forth all the evidence, or even purport to give the substance thereof. We must assume that the charge as given was fully warranted by the evidence. In so far as this question is presented by the record, the respondent has no legal cause of complaint.

It is also alleged as error that the sentence was unusually severe, and that in the light of all the facts it was in violation of the constitutional provision’ which *144 declares that “cruel or unusual punishment shall not be inflicted.” The sentence was not in excess of that permitted by statute, and when within the statute, this court has no supervisory control over the punishment that shall be inflicted. The statute gives a wide discretionary power to the trial court upon the supposition-that it will be judicially exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances appearing on the trial. Unless the case presented differed materially from what it would appear to have been, as shown by the bill of exceptions, we think the punishment inflicted was unusually severe, and have no doubt but that on a full presentation of the facts to the chief Executive, relief would be promptly and cheerfully granted.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 29 cases

View all citing references →
1883–1884: 21941–1942: 11965–1966: 31967–1968: 31969–1970: 31971–1972: 31973–1974: 11977–1978: 11981–1982: 11983–1984: 41987–1988: 11991–1992: 22001–2002: 12015–2016: 22025–2026: 118832026peak 1983 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Coles339 N.W.2d 440 (Mich. 1983)
  2. People v. Sinclair194 N.W.2d 878 (Mich. 1972)
  3. People v. Stevens340 N.W.2d 852 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)
  4. People v. Bullock485 N.W.2d 866 (Mich. 1992)
  5. Harmelin v. Michigan501 U.S. 957 (1991)
  6. State v. Houston2015 UT 40, 353 P.3d 55

Most recent

  1. People of Michigan v. Steven Russell BrcicNo. 362727 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2026) · Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
  2. State v. Houston2015 UT 40, 353 P.3d 55
  3. State v. Houston2015 UT 36
  4. People v. Babcock624 N.W.2d 479 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001)
  5. People v. Bullock485 N.W.2d 866 (Mich. 1992)
  6. Harmelin v. Michigan501 U.S. 957 (1991)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list