People v. Coffman

Lost papers — Preliminan'y examination — Ohallenge to the array — lies gestee— Proof of good character. 1. Where the return of an examining magistrate fails to include the complaint and warrant referred to therein, on making sufficient proof of the loss of said missing papers, it is competent for the People, in opposing a motion to quash (see opinion for reasons), to make proof of their contents. In such a case the court must necessarily go outside of the regular flies to ascertain if the proper preliminary steps have been taken to place respondent on trial. 2. Where a sufficient complaint and warrant is thus shown, and the record shows a preliminary examination before the magistrate who issued ¡•aid warrant for the offense charged therein, and the making of a commitment by said magistrate, in which he finds that the crime charged in the warrant has been committed and probable cause to believe respondent guilty of the commission thereof, a sufficient preliminary examination is shown and the filing of an information is fully authorized. 3. A challenge to the array based on the failure of a township to return a list of jurors, and a return by a second township after the time fixed by law, and after one jury had been drawn from the lists returned by the remaining townships, and the omission of the county clerk, on drawing the jury, to return the names drawn to the proper packages for each township until the whole list for all the townships is exhausted, is properly overruled. How. Stat. §§ 7554-67, 7575. Thomas v. People, 39 Mich. 811. 4. Where the homicide charged is shown by two unimpeached eye-witnesses and is not denied by respondent who defends on the ground of drunkenness, he can not complain for want of more evidence of the res gestse, it appearing that others witnessed the killing. 5 Where affirmative proof is made of the good character of a respondent, and on rebuttal a witness is asked if he knows what respondent’s character was while he lived at a certain place, an objection on the ground of incompetency is properly overruled. The answer of the witness, “ Yes, it was pretty bad,” is not strictly responsive, but no motion being made to strike it out for that or any other reason, error can not be assigned upon its admission.1

Error to Schoolcraft. (Steere, J.) Information for murder. Convicted of manslaughter. Respondent appeals. Respondent was informed against at the January, 1885, term of the circuit court for Schoolcraft county for the murder of his wife, Julia Coffman. Upon being arraigned his counsel moved to quash the information because 1. The records or files failed to show such a preliminary examination for said offense as the law provides, or a waiver thereof; and 2. It did not appear from such records or files that he had ever been charged with or arrested for said offense, except as he stands charged therewith in said information. In support of said motion respondent lK"'ii')duced said records and files, consisting of the testimon/Haken by the examining magistrate, on the examination of respondent for the offense charged in the information and a commitment issued by said magistrate, in the usual form, in which he stated that it appeared to him that said offense had been committed (describing it), and that there was probable cause to believe respondent guilty of its commission, and fixing bail in the sum of five thousand dollars. The testimony taken on the examination failed to locate the town or county or State in which the alleged murder was committed or to give the Christian name of respondent, but the caption reads as follows : “ State of Michigan, County of Schoolcraft, ss.: The examination of Leroy M. Spencer, Hiram Cone taken upon oath before me, Edward L. Small, a justice of the peace of the township of Onota, in the said county of Schoolcraft, on the 29th day of August, A. D. 1884, in the presence and hearing of Alfred Coffman, charged before me by Cyrille Ducette with having heretofore, to wit, on the 24th day of August, A. D. 1884, at the township of Onota, and in the said county aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully and of his malice aforethought, killed and murdered one Julia Coffman contrary to the’form of the statute, etc.” At the conclusion of the testimony was the following certificate: “ I hereby certify that the foregoing is the testimony taken before me this 29th day of August, A. D. 1884, in the examination of the People of the State of Michigan v. Alfred Coffman. Edward L. Small, Justice of the Peace.” In opposition to the motion the counsel for the People read and filed affidavits showing the making and filing with the justice of a complaint charging respondent with said murder, the issning of a warrant by the justice upon said complaint,' the ai’rest of respondent thereon and its return to the magistrate by the sheriff of Schoolcraft county, with respondent in custody. That the prosecuting attorney before filing said informtion, failing to find the complaint and warrant in the files, Wv.-t to Onota township, where such examination was had and said justice resided, but failed to find said justice, and learned that he had packed up all his books and papers and taken them away, and was unable to ascertain what had become of said complaint ‘ and warrant. The certificate of the county clerk was read, showing his inability, after diligent search, to find said papers in his office. Respondent objected to this documentary testimony as incompetent, but the court received the same and denied the motion to quash, whereupon respondent refused to plead, and by order of the court a plea of not guilty was entered for him. When the case came on for trial, and before the jury was sworn, respondent interposed a challenge to the array, based upon the following statement of facts testified to by the clerk of the court. At the time for return of jury lists in the spring of 1884, Schoolcraft county contained eight organized townships. The township of Burt made no return for 1884, and the township of Munising failed to send in list until after jury was drawn for the July term of that year, which jury consisted of four jurors from each of the six remaining townships. At the time the jury was drawn for the January term, 1885, at which respondent- was tried, the number of persons from whom to draw a jury was divided among the townshijas-as follows: Thompson 8, Manistique 36, Seney 5, Germfask 2, Onota 2, Munising 3. The list from Hiawatha had been exhausted at the former drawing. The panel was made up by drawing all of the remaining names from the townships of Onota, Germfask, Munising and Seney, and seven from eacli of the townships of Thompson and Manistique, making 26 in all. The two extra names were drawn, because the officers had knowledge of the removal of one of the persons previously drawn and the death of another: § 7567, Howell’s Statutes, 4th sub-division. The court sustained the demurrer of the People to the challenge of respondent, trial was thereupon had and a verdict of manslaughter rendered.