TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Machen

The People v. Arthur Machen

People v. Machen, 59 N.W. 664 (Mich. 1894)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 5, 1894
Judges
Grant, Other
Citations
59 N.W. 664101 Mich. 4001894 Mich. LEXIS 947
Disposition
Judgment affirmed.
Cited by 7
Headnotes
Criminal law — Larceny — Excluding witness ' from court-room— Evidence — Res gestae — Indorsing witnesses on information — Instructions to jury. 1. Respondent was informed against for attempting to commit the crime of larceny from the person. - On the trial his counsel requested that one of the two : officers who made the arrest should be excluded from the court-room while the other was testifying. And it is held that it was not error to refuse to grant the request, it being a matter entirely within the discretion of the court; citing People v. Burns, 67 Mich. 537. 2. Evidence that, just prior to his arrest, the respondent was seen with a newspaper in one hand, while his other hand was among the ladies’ dresses, feeling of their pockets, and that the witness notified one of the officers of respondent's movements, which information caused them to watch him, was competent as a part of the res gestae, tending to show intent. 3. During the trial the prosecuting attorney was permitted to indorse the name of a witness upon the information, after testifying that he had just learned that he was a material witness, And it is held that in this there was no error.1 4. Evidence that a “billy” was found upon the person of the respondent, at the time of his arrest, was admissible. 5. No testimony was offered on the part of the respondent. The jury were fully and fairly instructed upon the questions of reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence, and as to all of the elements necessary to be proved in order to convict. In the course of the charge the circuit judge said: “ You have heard the testimony for the prosecution. That is all there is to this case, — the testimony for the prosecution.” And it is held that this language, when considered with the entire charge, cannot be construed, as counsel insists, into even an intimation on the part of the judge that the people had established their case.
Summary
• Error to recorder's court of Detroit. (Chambers, J.) Eespondent was convicted of attempting to commit the crime of larceny from the person, and sentenced to imprisonment in the State prison for 28 months. The facts are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court — Grant

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

Grant, J.

Respondent was convicted of an attempt to commit larceny from the person. Two officers testified that their attention had been called to his actions, that they watched him, and arrested him with his hand in a lady’s pocket.

1. Respondent’s counsel requested that one officer be excluded while the other was testifying, which request was refused. This point is ruled by People v. Burns, 67 Mich. 537 . The refusal was not error.

2. One Orth,, just previous to the arrest, had seen respondent with a newspaper in one hand and his other hand among the ladies’ dresses, feeling their pockets, and notified one of the officers of his movements. This information caused the officers to watch him. Error is alleged upon the admission of this evidence. It was competent as a part of the res gestae, tending to show the intent.

3, During the trial the prosecuting attorney was per *405 mifcted to indorse the name of a witness npon the information, after testifying that he had just learned that he was a material witness. In this there was no error.

4. There was no error in admitting evidence that a “billy” was found upon the person of the respondent at the time of his arrest.

5. Complaint is made that the judge, in charging the jury, said:

“You have heard the testimony for the prosecution. That is all there is to this case, — the testimony for the prosecution.”

No testimony was offered on the part of the respondent. The judge fully and fairly instructed the -jury upon the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, and all the elements necessary to be proven in order to convict. This language, when considered with the entire charge, cannot be construed, as counsel insists, into even an intimation on the part of the judge that the people had *406 established their case. The ease was fairly submitted to the jury.

We find no error, and the judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1895: 11897: 11908: 11912: 11918: 11967: 11970: 118952026peak 1895 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Karamol139 N.W. 1 (Mich. 1912)
  2. People v. Williams149 N.W.2d 245 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967)
  3. State v. Lambert71 A. 1092 (Me. 1908)
  4. People v. Considine63 N.W. 196 (Mich. 1895)
  5. People v. Powers168 N.W. 938 (Mich. 1918)
  6. People v. Baker70 N.W. 431 (Mich. 1897)

Most recent

  1. People v. Miner177 N.W.2d 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
  2. People v. Williams149 N.W.2d 245 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967)
  3. People v. Powers168 N.W. 938 (Mich. 1918)
  4. People v. Karamol139 N.W. 1 (Mich. 1912)
  5. State v. Lambert71 A. 1092 (Me. 1908)
  6. People v. Baker70 N.W. 431 (Mich. 1897)

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. Burns, 35 N.W. 154 (Mich. 1887) 17

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