People v. Gordon
| Decision Date | 24 April 1879 |
| Citation | 40 Mich. 716 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The People v. John Gordon |
Submitted April 23, 1879
Exceptions certified before sentence from the Recorder's Court of the city of Detroit. Submitted April 23. Decided April 24.
Respondent discharged and the prosecution discontinued.
Attorney General Otto Kirchner for the people.
Hawley & Firnane for the respondent. When one reasonably accounts for his possession of stolen property, the prosecutor must show that his statement is false, 3 Greenl. Ev., § 32; Jones v. State, 30 Miss. 653; Reg v. Crowhurst, 1 C. & K., 370; Garcia v. State 26 Tex. 209.
Defendant was convicted of burglary in the alleged nocturnal breaking and entering of the house of one :[ILLEGIBLE WORD] L. Stevens, in Detroit, and stealing a quantity of silver and other small articles therefrom. The only evidence connecting defendant with the offense was his arrest with a satchel containing the articles. The only evidence of the burglary was that the house, which was temporarily unoccupied except by a brother of the owner sleeping in it, was entered through a window in the front; that a lamp which belonged in the kitchen was found unlighted in the front hall; and that a clock had stopped at five minutes past eight, and that its door had been opened and it was not run down.
This case was before us at the last October term, and some of the questions now before us were somewhat considered. It seems to us that some things which were then passed upon do not appear to have received full consideration on the second trial.
It appears from the evidence for the prosecution that on the evening of the arrest, at a late hour, one O'Neil saw prisoner and two men named White and Hardy walking up Jefferson avenue and prisoner was carrying a satchel. This was near Third street. He at once walked up Jefferson avenue to Cass street, three blocks, to notify a policeman, and there found policemen John Dacy and Michael Fitzpatrick, and told them, and they answered, "That is the party we are waiting for." Dacy stopped them, and Fitzpatrick asked them if they were the three who had been in Whitson's saloon. They answered, no. Dacy asked where they came from, and Gordon answered, 'from the Central depot,' and struck Dacy, dropped the satchel and ran. Fitzpatrick struck White and arrested him. No attempt was made to arrest Hardy. Dacy and Fitzpatrick swore to seeing Gordon, White and Hardy in Whitson's saloon between 11 and 12. There was no evidence in the record showing any acts or sayings of any of these parties in the saloon throwing any light on the case. Dacy swore that he saw Hardy afterwards and did not arrest him, and was told by roundsman Somerville that he was not wanted. He also swore that he heard detective Sullivan say in the station house at the same time that they were looking for Gordon, who was afterwards taken.
Dacy was asked, but the court refused to allow the question to be answered, whether on the evening of the arrest, or the day following, he saw detective Sullivan and heard him claim that he knew all about the affair, and that if Dacy and Fitzpatrick had not bungled the matter, Gordon as well as White would have been arrested; and further, whether Sullivan did not give him to understand that Hardy had given him notice or warning, and that Hardy was taking them where they would be easy to arrest.
We cannot see on what principle this was ruled out, and we think it within our previous decision. It was certainly a very singular circumstance that these men, who were shown by the prosecution to have been together an hour or two before the arrest, were waited for and expected by police officers and by O'Neil, without any attempt to arrest them earlier. It is also very strange that Hardy, who was with the others at the place referred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. David
...the witnesses who had a personal knowledge of the homicide; to see that the guilty are punished and the innocent are protected. People v. Gordon, 40 Mich. 716; State Kilgore, 70 Mo. 546. The court is asked to review and reconsider the opinion in case of State v. Eaton, 75 Mo. 586; Mayn v. S......
-
State v. Warford
... ... Wharton, Crim. Ev. [9 Ed.] sec. 763; 1 Wharton, Crim. Law [9 ... Ed.] sec. 818; 1 Wharton, Crim. Law [7 Ed.] sec. 729; ... Stewart v. People, 42 Mich. 255; State v ... Shaffer, 59 Ia. 290; State v. Tilton, 63 Ia ... 117; 2 Bishop, Crim. Proc., sec. 747, note 3; Jones v ... State, 6 arker, 125; Com. v. McGarty, 114 ... Mass. 299; State v. Reid, 20 Iowa 413; State v ... Hayden, 45 Iowa 11; People v. Gordon, 40 Mich ... 716; People v. Noregea, 48 Cal. 123; People v ... Mitchell, 55 Cal. 236. (5) Remarks in a closing ... argument, dehors the record, ... ...
-
State v. Patterson
...appellant. (1) The court erred in sustaining the state's demurrer to the plea of once in jeopardy. Flagg v. People, 40 Mich. 706; Gordon's case, 40 Mich. 716; State v. Moon, 41 Wis. 684; State v. Moore, 66 Mo. 372; Shepherd v. People, 25 N. Y. 406. (2) The court erred in permitting the stat......
-
State v. Brady
...possession of property recently stolen, under such circumstances has no tendency to prove the possessor's guilt of the burglary. People v. Gordon, 40 Mich. 716. And, on the other hand, there seem to be cases which hold that such fact alone creates a sufficient presumption of guilt to justif......