TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Quick

The People v. Charles Quick

People v. Quick, 18 N.W. 375 (Mich. 1884)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 7, 1884
Judges
Cueiam
Citations
18 N.W. 37551 Mich. 5471884 Mich. LEXIS 844
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Oriminallaw — Testimony in one’sown defence — Obligation to call witnesses named on information. The purpose of permitting the respondent in a criminal prosecution to o testify on his own behalf is to enable him to present his own defence. The prosecution in a criminal case are not obliged to call all the witnesses that are named on the information.
Summary
Exceptions before judgment from Oakland. (Stickney, J.) LaeoeNY. Respondent was convicted.

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

Opinion of the Court — Cueiam

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

Pee Cueiam.

The defendant in this case was a witness on bis own behalf. The charge was of larceny of a watch. The defendant did not deny taking the watch, and the question at issue was the felonious intent. The defendant had picked up the owner of the watch from the ground in the public street where, as he testified, he was lying partly on his face. He raised him up and tried to have him stand on his feet. He was then asked by his counsel “ Why did you do that ? ” This was objected to “ as permitting the defendant to make his own defence,” and ruled out. This was error. The purpose in permitting the defendant to testify on his own behalf is precisely this: to permit him to make his own defence. Further explanations by him were cut off by the like objections.

Other questions are raised not likely to come up on another trial, and we do not consider them. One may be mentioned, however, namely, whether the prosecution is under obligation to produce on the trial every person named as a witness on the information. We think not. ,.

How later courts describe this case

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

1886–1887: 11894–1895: 11908–1909: 11912–1913: 21924–1925: 11984–1985: 118862026peak 1912 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Simmons364 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)
  2. State v. Johnson118 N.W. 230 (N.D. 1908)
  3. Selph v. State22 Fla. 537 (1886)
  4. People v. Whittemore203 N.W. 87 (Mich. 1925)
  5. People v. Kindra60 N.W. 458 (Mich. 1894)
  6. Pueblo v. Román18 P.R. Dec. 219 (1912)

Most recent

  1. People v. Simmons364 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)
  2. People v. Whittemore203 N.W. 87 (Mich. 1925)
  3. People v. Román18 P.R. 217 (1912)
  4. Pueblo v. Román18 P.R. Dec. 219 (1912)
  5. State v. Johnson118 N.W. 230 (N.D. 1908)
  6. People v. Kindra60 N.W. 458 (Mich. 1894)

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