People v. Prinz

People v. Prinz, 111 N.W. 739 (Mich. 1907)

Court: Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: April 30, 1907
Docket: No. 81
Judges: Hooker, McAlvay, Montgomery, Moore, Ostrander
Citations: 111 N.W. 739148 Mich. 3071907 Mich. LEXIS 530
Disposition: Affirmed.

Headnotes

1. Criminal Law — Appeal—Scope oe Review — Questions Raised Below. The general rule in criminal as well as civil cases is that this court will, on review, consider only such questions as were presented for the consideration of the trial court. 2. Same — Trial—Instructions—Duty of Court. In a criminal case the trial judge should, even though no request be preferred, give instructions covering the general features of the case, define the offense, and indicate what it is essential to prove to establish the offense. ,

Summary

Error to the recorder’s court of Detroit; Phelan, J. Otto Prinz was convicted of the crime of rape, and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 10 nor more than 20 years in the branch of the State prison at Marquette.

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

Opinion of the Court — Montgomery

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

Montgomery, J.

The respondent was convicted of the crime of rape, and brings the case here for review on error.

It was conceded at the argument that no exception was taken to the rulings of the trial judge now complained of, and no requests to charge upon the questions which it is now claimed should have been covered. The general rule in criminal as well as civil cases is that this court will, on review, consider only such questions as were presented for the consideration of the trial court. People v. Wade, 101 Mich. 89 ; People v. Warner, 104 Mich. 337 ; People *308 v. Smith, 106 Mich. 431 ; People v. Carter, 117 Mich. 576 . It is doubtless true that the trial judge should, even though no requests be preferred, cover the' general features of the case, define the offense, and indicate what it is essential to prove to establish the offense. This duty was fully performed in this case. We do not intimate that, if the questions discussed were all open to review, there was any prejudicial error.

The testimony was ample to warrant the conviction, which is affirmed.

McAlvay, C. J., and Ostrander, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 21 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

People v. Brott128 N.W. 236 (Mich. 1910)
People v. Ora Jones236 N.W.2d 461 (Mich. 1975)
People v. Townes218 N.W.2d 136 (Mich. 1974)
People v. Guillett69 N.W.2d 140 (Mich. 1955)
People v. McCoy220 N.W.2d 456 (Mich. 1974)
People v. Knott228 N.W.2d 838 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)

Most recent

People v. McDaniels245 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976)
People v. Ora Jones236 N.W.2d 461 (Mich. 1975)
People v. MacK236 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
People v. Karasek234 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
People v. Alcala234 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)
People v. Watts232 N.W.2d 396 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)

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 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	People v. Warner, 62 N.W. 405 (Mich. 1895)	22
	People v. Wade, 59 N.W. 438 (Mich. 1894)	7
	People v. Smith, 64 N.W. 200 (Mich. 1895)	7
	People v. Carter, 76 N.W. 90 (Mich. 1898)	4

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list