People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 05 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | April Term, 1922.,No. 124,124 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
218 Mich. 697
188 N.W. 413
PEOPLE
v.
WILLIAMS
No. 124, April Term, 1922.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
June 5, 1922.
Error to Recorder's Court of Detroit; Pliny W. Marsh, Judge.
Minnie Williams was convicted of larceny from a store in the daytime, and she brings error. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before FELLOWS, C. J., and WIEST, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ.
[188 N.W. 414]
Thomas L. Dalton, of Detroit (Frederick P. Hempel, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.
Merlin Wiley, Atty. Gen., and Paul W. Voorhies, Pros. Atty., and Elton R. Nellis, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Detroit, for the People.
WIEST, J.
Respondent was convicted of the crime of larceny from a store in the daytime. While in a store she took two pair of hose of the value of $4.20 from a counter, concealed the same about her person, and walked out.
The act was witnessed by the store detective, who followed defendant to the street and arrested her.
The defense was want of sufficient mental capacity to commit the crime charged.
Connected with the recorder's court of Detroit is a psychopathic clinic with Dr. A. L. Jacoby as director, and when defendant was arrested her case was referred to Dr. Jacoby for examination and report. She was examined, and the following report filed in the case:
‘In intelligence she shows herself definitely defective, with a mental age of 10 years 6 months and an intelligence quotient of 65. There is also present in her case signs of the organic type of deterioration, probably the result of excesses in her life of immorality.
‘I do not believe that she is the type of case who can be self-supporting, and that if at large she will resort to petty crime to obtain her self-support. There seems to be insufficient evidence to warrant her commitment as insane, and, if she were sent to an infirmary, in all probability she would leave there, so that control would be lost over her. I would therefore recommend for her a prison sentence in order to obtain for her the necessary custodial care.’
At the trial and during the presentation of the people's case, counsel for defendant offered this report in evidence, and upon objection it was excluded, but later, and after Dr. Jacoby had given his testimony, it was admitted without objection. Defendant claims there was error in excluding the report when it was first offered. The report was not admissible as substantive evidence of defendant's mental condition.
The defendant called two alienists who had examined her, and they gave testimony in substance that they had spent an hour questioning her about simple facts, and noted her answers, demeanor, and expression, and one was of the opinion she had the mind of a child not over 7 years of age, and the other that her mentality was below that of one 10 years of age, and both expressed the opinion that she had no conception of property rights, had loss of memory, was incapable of forming an intent to commit a crime because unable to distinguish between right and wrong, and one stated she had no resistance of will.
Dr. Jacoby testified in rebuttal that his examination of defendant revealed a mental age of 10 years and 6 months, and a person with a mentality of 10 years and 6 months would be capable of forming a criminal intent with reference to the crime of larceny from a store in the daytime, and capable of distinguishing between right and wrong with reference to the crime of larceny. This testimony of Dr. Jacoby in rebuttal was objected to on the ground that it should have been offered by the people in making out the main case. There is no merit in this objection. Until there was some testimony in the case tending to show want of mental capacity to commit the crime the people had a right to proceed on the presumption that defendant had mental capacity.
Complaint is made of the closing argument of the prosecuting attorney relative to the testimony of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Howard
....... B . Relying on People v. Tyson, 423 Mich. 357, 373-376, 377 N.W.2d 738 (1985), together with People v. Williams, 218 Mich. 697, 188 N.W. 413 (1922), and People v. Cowles, 246 Mich. 429, 224 N.W. 387 (1929), defendant argues that the prosecutor engaged in numerous, improper attacks of his expert witness. Because defendant did not object to any of the challenged remarks at . Page 27 . trial, appellate ......
-
People v. Martin, s. 1
....... In both the case of People v. Martin, and the case of People v. J. C. Lewis, Jr., the Court of Appeals and the trial court are affirmed. . T. M. KAVANAGH, C.J., and WILLIAMS, BLACK, SWAINSON, and BRENNAN, JJ., concur. . T. G. KAVANAGH, J., concurs in the result. . --------------- . . 1 No extended discussion or analysis of the various tests will be undertaken in this opinion. For an excellent presentation of the same, see Abraham S. Goldstein, The ......
-
People v. Leighty, Docket No. 77849
...... See People v. Williams, 134 Mich.App. 639, 643-644, 351 N.W.2d 878 (1984). The trial court did not err in declining to suppress the evidence on the basis of the warrant[161 Mich.App. 574] affidavit. In summary, none of defendant's arguments support suppression of the cocaine seized in the search of her vehicle. . ......
-
People v. Miller, Docket No. 108997
...... The Tyson opinion reaffirmed the long-standing rule that a highly prejudicial attack of a defendant's expert witness without support on the record would require reversal. Tyson, supra, pp. 374-376, 377 N.W.2d 738, relying on People v. Williams, 218 Mich. 697, 188 N.W. 413 (1922), and People v. Cowles, 246 Mich. 429, 224 N.W. 387 (1929). However, the Tyson Court was examining argument that was filled with innuendos, insults and ridicule. Tyson, 423 Mich. 375, 377 N.W.2d 738. No such language is present here and we agree with the trial ......