O'Hara v. People

• Decision Date: 14 October 1879
• Citation: 41 Mich. 623,3 N.W. 161
• Parties: JOHN O'HARA v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

3 N.W. 161

41 Mich. 623

JOHN O'HARA v. PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 14, 1879

A defendant is not amenable to prosecution upon a criminal information unless he has been examined or given a chance to be examined before a lawful officer. A prisoner irregularly charged with a criminal offence was found guilty and recommended to the mercy of the court. The judge gave him to understand that he would receive a severe sentence unless he withdrew his plea of not guilty, pleaded guilty, paid in $400, and estopped himself from bringing error. He went through the form of doing this, paying in the $400. Held, the judgment should be reversed.

Error to Alpena.

Turnbell & McDonald, for plaintiff in error.

Otto Kirchner, Attorney General, for the people.

GRAVES J.

O'Hara was informed against for adultery, and pleaded against the prosecution that it was not founded on any preliminary examination before a qualified officer. He averred that the only color of such an examination was before a night policeman, who was neither in law nor fact a justice of the peace. The pleading need not be repeated. The defence was overruled by the court and the defendant placed on trial. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and recommended the defendant to the mercy of the court. Some very extraordinary proceedings followed. The defendant was given by the judge to understand that he must submit to a severe sentence or else withdraw his plea of not guilty; enter a plea of guilty and immediately pay $400, and estop himself from bringing error. He accepted the last alternative, and went through the form of withdrawing the plea on which he had been tried and convicted, and of pleading guilty, and paid in the $400.

The attorney general very naturally declined to offer anything in defence of these proceedings. We are not informed upon what ground the judge sustained the jurisdiction against the objection made to it. The truth of the matters pleaded seems to have been admitted, and that being so it would appear to follow that it stood admitted that there was no foundation for the information. Unless the defendant had been examined or had been given a chance to be examined before a lawful officer, he was not amenable to the prosecution. The great impropriety of the latter proceedings referred to is too manifest to justify extended comment.

When a convicted person is brought up for sentence he has rights still, and it is...