People v. Lyons

• Decision Date: 04 October 1882
• Citation: 13 N.W. 365,49 Mich. 78
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. LYONS.

13 N.W. 365

49 Mich. 78

PEOPLE v. LYONS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 4, 1882

Statements made in respondent's absence by a person not charged as an accomplice, are inadmissible in aid of the prosecution.

Memoranda used by a witness for the prosecution should be open to the examination of respondent's counsel so far as necessary to expose falsehood and arrive at the facts; and this may be so even though the witness testifies that entries on other pages have nothing to do with the case.

A called at an express office for a package addressed to B. and containing a watch alleged to have been stolen by C. Held that on the prosecution of C. for the larceny it was proper for the defense to question A. as to directions left with A by B. for receiving mail and express matter addressed to B.

A witness for a respondent charged with larceny cannot be cross-examined to show that the respondent had stolen other property, or that property pawned by witness for respondent was stolen. But intimacy between witness and respondent may be shown as tending to affect the witness' credibility and it is proper to show that witness had pawned things for respondent.

The failure of a witness for the defense to prove the existence of a third person cannot properly be used as an argument by the prosecution; though if the existence of such person is material to the defense the failure of the defense to show it, is a proper subject of comment.

A witness has no power to produce corroborating testimony, and his failure to do so cannot be used against the party for whom he testifies.

It is error for a judge to tell the jury that if he were in their place he should give no weight to the testimony of a certain witness and very little to that of another; and the error is not cured by his saying that they are sole judges of what the evidence is and of the weight of the testimony of every witness and that it did not belong to him to say to them that they must or must not believe it.

A witness has no power to produce corroborating testimony, and his failure to do so cannot be used against the party for whom he testifies.

Error to Washtenaw. Information for the larceny of a gold watch and chain from the person of a Mrs. Herrick Cornwell on the fair ground at Ann Arbor. The watch was at once forwarded to Detroit in a package addressed to Mrs Sarah Smith, and was delivered next day by the express company to the chief of police. It was meantime called for by Mrs. Sarah Brew, who presented the receipt for it. A few days later the police department returned the watch, formally searched for it and retook possession, and two policemen took it to respondent's residence.

Jesse D. Williams, one of the policemen, testified that he and Officer Webb obtained the package at the express office and took it to Mrs. Lyons' house, where he saw Mrs. Brew, to whom he said "I have a package here for Mrs. Sarah Smith; does she live here?" Mrs. Brew said she did and that she was the person. Williams asked her for her express receipt and she gave it to him. He told her he should keep the receipt and the package,--it was stolen property. He also asked her if Mrs. Lyons was at home and Mrs. Brew said she was not. He testified that when he told her it was stolen property and he should keep it, she was considerably excited.

Mrs Theresa Lewis, a witness for the prosecution, testified that Mrs. Brew was living in Mrs. Lyons' house, and sometimes said she was Mrs. Lyons' house-keeper, and sometimes that Mrs. Lyons was boarding with her. The witness had gone to Mrs. Lyons' house on the day after the watch was stolen, and as she went up the street she saw Mrs. Brew standing in the door and beckoning to her; Mrs. Brew said "the madame has been stealing again." This testimony was objected to, but the prosecution claimed that it was admissible on the ground that Mrs. Brew was an accomplice. The court ruled that whatever was shown to have been said by Mrs. Brew about the matter was proper testimony. The witness went on to testify that Mrs. Brew produced a letter in Mrs. Lyons' handwriting and asked her to read it, and that it read as follows: "Sarah, go to the express office and get the watch and chain and put it in my box. Don't let any one see it. SOPHIE." She then asked Mrs. Lewis to stay and take care of her little girl, which Mrs. Lewis did while Mrs. Brew went to the express office. When Mrs. Brew came back she said, "I'll never go to that express office again; I was never so mortified in my life. When I went in they all looked at me. I showed them the receipt. I have been there so many times before this." This witness, while giving her testimony, referred to a memorandum, and on her cross-examination respondent's counsel asked permission to examine it. The witness objected and ...