People v. Quick

• Decision Date: 28 October 1885
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. QUICK.

25 N.W. 302

58 Mich. 321

PEOPLE v. QUICK.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 28, 1885

Error to Oakland.

Moses Taggart, for the People.

Thos J. Davis, for appellant.

CAMPBELL J.

Respondent was convicted of stealing a watch from the person of one David Wright. The case was before us on conviction upon a former trial, which was set aside on a single ground, on the supposition that the prosecution would on a second trial avoid other errors which we did not think it necessary to dwell on. 51 Mich. 547; S.C. 18 N.W. 375. A further trial was had, and the case comes up again upon several assignments of error, which are within well-settled rules of law. We shall not take them all up in course, but point out such as may be grouped together.

We have held on several occasions that the defendant has a right to know in advance of the trial what witnesses are to be produced against him, so far as then known, and to have any new witnesses indorsed on the information as soon as discovered. The object of this is not merely to advise a respondent what witnesses will be produced on the main charge. It is to guard him against the production of persons who are unknown, and whose character he should have an opportunity to canvass. It is as important to impeach a rebutting witness as any other. In the present case, however, the witnesses who were received as rebutting witnesses were not such. They were called to prove what belonged to the people's case in chief. Cases may sometimes arise where testimony which could not be had in the opening may be let in upon good cause shown thereafter. But it is not proper to divide up the testimony on which the people propose to rest their case, and nothing which tends to prove the commission of the crime itself, or its immediate surroundings, can be classed as rebutting evidence under ordinary circumstances, if at all. In this case that rule was repeatedly violated.

Complaint is also made with reason against the allowance, and apparently, the approval, of various statements made by the prosecuting officer in his summing up. We are not at all disposed to reverse judgments for merely indiscreet ebullitions of counsel which may be allowed for, and are neutralized by the effect of the charge. But in the present case there were some things said to the jury which could hardly fail to do mischief. The case was one where the evident character of several of the persons brought forward would make it necessary for the jury to weigh their testimony with more than usual care. The prosecuting witness was an admitted...