People v. Digione, 142.

• Decision Date: 07 March 1930
• Docket Number: No. 142.,142.
• Citation: 250 Mich. 206,229 N.W. 421
• Parties: PEOPLE v. DIGIONE et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

250 Mich. 206

229 N.W. 421

PEOPLE

v.DIGIONE et al.

No. 142.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 7, 1930.

Error to Circuit Court, Ingham County; Charles B. Collingwood, Judge.

James Digione and others were convicted of placing an explosive against a building with intent to destroy or injure the same, and of conspiracy with respect thereto, and they bring error.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench, except McDONALD, J.Frank L. Dodge and Harry F. Hittle, both of Lansing, for appellants.

Wilber M. Brucker, Atty. Gen., and John W. Bird, Pros. Atty., and Dan D. McCullough, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Lansing, for the People.

CLARK, J.

[1] Defendants bring error to review judgments entered upon a verdict of guilty as charged under an information containing two counts-one charging the placing of an explosive against a building with intent to destroy or injure the same in whole or in part, and which explosive caused destruction of the property of another, contrary to section 2, Act No. 119, Pub. Acts 1927; the other charging conspiracy with respect thereto and under section 5 of the same act.

The explosion occurred in Lansing about 1:20 in the morning, and a few moments later three of the defendants, in an automobile leaving the city for their homes in Jackson, were arrested. The fourth defendant, a resident of Lansing, was brought in later that morning. Questioned separately, and later together, at least three of the defendants made admissions or declarations somewhat damaging to themselves. In the trial testimony of the admissions or declarations was received over objection that they had not been made in the prosecution of the alleged conspiracy or while it was still in progress, but after it had been complated, and were mere hearsay, not binding upon or evidence against any of them, in support of which counsel cite People v. Pitcher, 15 Mich. 397,People v. Parker, 67 Mich. 222, 34 N. W. 720,11 Am. St. Rep. 578, and other authorities. If it be conceded the objection was good under the count for conspiracy, nevertheless the testimony must be held admissible under the other count. The admissions or declarations of each defendant were admissible against him. As the court was not requested to control the effect of this testimony, we cannot find reversible error in this regard.

Defendants' counsel seem to have had the impression the first count had been abandoned. The record does not support it. The case went to the jury on both counts with verdict as stated.

It is urged the jury was not instructed of the theory and nature of the defense on the facts. The record does not show what it was. None of defendants' testimony appears. The only defense indicated is that given by the court upon arraignment, a plea of not guilty. This defense was covered in the charge.

[2] The jury was out a long time, and it seems had difficulty in reaching a verdict. They were permitted to separate for the night. On their return into court the following morning, the judge made some remarks to them and to a jury considering another case. He read to them the oath of jurors, to ‘well and truly...