People v. Jackson
Citation | 8 Mich. 110 |
Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Decision Date | 27 April 1860 |
Parties | The People v. Charles Jackson |
Heard April 24, 1860
On exceptions from the recorder's court of Detroit.
Motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions granted.
A Russell, for the people.
L Bishop, for defendant.
The chief justice:
This is a motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions brought up before judgment, in a prosecution for an offense arising under an ordinance of the city of Detroit. We have already decided (see p. 78) that questions arising upon the trial of such prosecutions could not be reserved for our advice, nor entertained by us, for want of jurisdiction. The same reasons which exclude jurisdiction in such cases, apply to the bill of exceptions now before us. The recorder's court has a twofold jurisdiction. Jurisdiction under the general laws of the state, over prosecutions for offenses against such laws committed within the city, and jurisdiction over prosecutions for violations of city ordinances. In respect to the former the general laws in all respects apply; and cases, questions, and bills of exceptions may be exhibited to us, precisely as they may by a circuit judge or court. But in respect to the latter, no such right exists in the recorder, nor is any such jurisdiction conferred upon us.
A careful examination of the charter will show, that the powers and jurisdiction in the latter class of cases are not co-extensive with those in the former, and that it was the intention of the legislature to keep them distinct. For example, all writs and process issuing from said recorder's court on complaints under the ordinances, shall be to the marshal or any constable of the city; while those for offenses against the general laws, shall be directed to the sheriff, shall run in the name of the people of the state of Michigan, and shall be sealed, etc. Prosecutions under the general laws shall be by indictment, complaint or information, in the name of the people, signed by the prosecuting attorney, etc., while those for violations of a city ordinance shall be by written complaint of any one aggrieved, sworn to by him, and the intervention of the prosecuting attorney is not required. The city attorney or any private attorney acts in behalf of the prosecution in the latter case. The complaint in the former case is an official act; in the latter it is not necessarily such.
Again by the provisions of the constitution and of the common law, persons charged with crime must be tried by a jury, and the law is well settled that this is imperative, and not a right to be waived; yet,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Mallory
...before said, the violations of the village ordinances are not considered criminal offenses. Mixer v. Supervisors, 26 Mich. 422; People v. Jackson, 8 Mich. 110 (Jackson v. People, 8 Mich. 262);' Village of Vicksburg v. Briggs, 85 Mich. 502, 508, 48 N.W. 625, 'The term 'criminal cases,' used ......
-
Irvin v. State
...of the village ordinances are not considered criminal offenses. People ex rel. Mixer v. Board of Supervisors, 26 Mich. 422; People v. Jackson, 8 Mich. 110 (Jackson v. People, 8 Mich. 262);' Village of Vicksburg v. Briggs, 85 Mich. 502, 508, 48 N.W. 625, "The term 'criminal cases,' used in t......
-
People v. Kirby
...with crime must be tried by a jury, and the law is well settled that this is imperative, and not a right to be waived...." People v. Jackson, 8 Mich. 110, 111 (1860). Some of the early decisions showed a remarkable antipathy towards the option to waive a jury "Let it once be settled that a ......
-
State v. Muir
... ... 285; Wiggins v ... Chicago, 58 Ill. 372; State v. Henchert, 42 La ... Ann. 271; Monroe v. Menser, 35 La. Ann. 1193; ... Cooper v. People", 41 Mich. 403; People v ... Jackson, 8 Mich. 110; People v. Maurster ... County, 26 Mich. 424; Jackson v. People, 8 Mich. 262 ... \xC2" ... ...