TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Durand v. People

Charles Durand v. The People

Durand v. People, 11 N.W. 184 (Mich. 1882)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 5, 1882
Judges
Mabston, Other
Citations
11 N.W. 18447 Mich. 3321882 Mich. LEXIS 639
Disposition
Affirmed.
Cited by 11 2 descriptions by later courts
Headnotes
Information — Omission of deseri¡ytive averments. An information for the statutory offense of an assault witli intent to rob (Comp. L. § 7525) is not to be held bad, after verdict, for the omission of descriptive averments, if it describes the offense in the words of the statute; nor for the omission of the word “feloniously.” An information for an assault with intent to rob will lie though the person assaulted was not the actual owner of the property. Actual possession or custody is sufficient as against the wrong-doer.
Summary
Error to Superior Court of Grand Rapids. Inkobmatíon for assault with intent to rob. Respondent 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 — Mabston

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

Mabston, J.

The respondent was charged with having committed an offense contrary to the provisions of Comp. L § 7525, by an assault with intent to rob.

Upon the trial all evidence, except for the purpose of showing that an assault had been committed, was objected to, for the reason that none other was charged in the information.

Without attempting to specify and discuss in detail the questions presented on the argument in this court, we are of opinion that the information was sufficient and that the objection taken thereto cannot be sustained. Section 7928 provides that where the offense charged has been created by any statute, or the punishment for such offense declared by any statute, the indictment shall, after verdict, be held suffi_ cient if it describe the offense in the words of the statute - and by section 7912 it is declared that no indictment shall be deemed invalid, nor the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of the omission of the word “feloniously.”

*334 While true it is that in certain cases a more full and complete description of the offense is essential, (People v. Olmstead 30 Mich. 439,) yet this is not one of that class, as the omissions of descriptive averments cannot prejudice the accused. Even if a more full and descriptive charge were necessary, we are not prepared to say the present information could not be held sufficient, as some of the counts are quite full upon this point. Neither is it necessary that the person assaulted must have been the actual owner of the property intended to be taken. As against a wrong-doer an actual possession or custody of the goods would be sufficient.

The objection that the evidence did not tend to prove the offense charged is not well taken. The evidence was remarkably clear and strong.

The judgment must be affirmed.

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.

  • (noting, in a case of assault with intent to rob, that “[a]s against a wrong-doer an actual possession or custody of the goods would be sufficient”)
    People v. March, 499 Mich. 389 (2016)
  • (“Neither is it necessary that the person assaulted must have been the actual owner of the property intended to be taken. As against a wrong-doer, an actual possession or custody of the goods would be sufficient.”)
    People v. Smith-Anthony, 837 N.W.2d 415 (Mich. 2013)

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1899: 11902: 11930: 11931: 11967: 11970: 11983: 11984: 12002: 12013: 12016: 118992026peak 1899 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Smith-Anthony837 N.W.2d 415 (Mich. 2013) · Dissent
  2. People v. Wakeford341 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. 1983)
  3. People v. March499 Mich. 389 (2016)
  4. People v. Randolph648 N.W.2d 164 (Mich. 2002)
  5. People v. Gould179 N.W.2d 617 (Mich. 1970)
  6. People v. Hooks360 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)

Most recent

  1. People v. March499 Mich. 389 (2016)
  2. People v. Smith-Anthony837 N.W.2d 415 (Mich. 2013) · Dissent
  3. People v. Randolph648 N.W.2d 164 (Mich. 2002)
  4. People v. Hooks360 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)
  5. People v. Wakeford341 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. 1983)
  6. People v. Gould179 N.W.2d 617 (Mich. 1970)

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

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Olmstead, 30 Mich. 431 (1874) 44

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