TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Dowd

The People v. Edward Dowd

People v. Dowd, 7 N.W. 71 (Mich. 1880)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 27, 1880
Judges
Marston, Other
Citations
7 N.W. 7144 Mich. 4881880 Mich. LEXIS 607
Disposition
Exceptions overruled.
Cited by 10
Headnotes
Objections to criminal complaint — Exclusion of evidence. Objections to a criminal complaint or warrant cannot be raised for the first time when the respondent is called upon to plead to an information for the offense charged therein, if he was examined upon the charge contained in them without objection before being bound over. A motion to strike out evidence is properly denied if it covers any that is competent.
Summary
Exceptions before - judgment from the Recorder’s Court of Detroit. Information for receiving stolen property. Respondent was convicted below.

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, C. J.

Whether the respondent in this case could have interposed a valid objection in the police court to the complaint and warrant under which he was arrested, or either of them, either in form or substance, we need not determine. An examination was had without objection and the respondent held for trial, and we are of opinion that he could not for the first time raise such objections when called upon to plead to the information, as the charge contained in the information was embraced in the complaint and warrant and covered by the examination.

The motion made to strike out the testimony of certain of *489 the witnesses was properly denied, as the evidence given, in part at least, was competent as against the respondent, and .the motion to strike out included this also. The court also properly refused to withdraw the case from the consideration of the jury.

We discover no error in the record and it must be so certified to the Recorder’s Court.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1885–1886: 11895–1896: 11905–1906: 11909–1910: 11923–1924: 11925–1926: 11931–1932: 11957–1958: 11967–1968: 11977–1978: 118852026peak 1885 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Talley1910 OK CR 220, 112 P. 36
  2. State v. Holt219 P. 557 (Nev. 1923)
  3. State v. McCaffery40 P. 63 (Mont. 1895)
  4. People v. Spalla269 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)
  5. State ex rel. Poul v. McLain102 N.W. 407 (N.D. 1905)
  6. People v. Hare24 N.W. 843 (Mich. 1885)

Most recent

  1. People v. Spalla269 N.W.2d 259 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)
  2. People v. Owens164 N.W.2d 712 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)
  3. People v. Eddy85 N.W.2d 117 (Mich. 1957)
  4. People v. Licavoli239 N.W. 292 (Mich. 1931)
  5. People v. King205 N.W. 154 (Mich. 1925)
  6. State v. Holt219 P. 557 (Nev. 1923)

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