Becker v. People
| Decision Date | 05 April 1882 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | BECKER v. PEOPLE. |
On the trial of an information for robbery, unless the possession by the prosecuting witness of the money of which he claims to have been robbed is contested, the defence cannot as a matter of right question him to show contradictory statements as to where he obtained it.
On the examination in chief the prosecuting witness testified that the prisoner told him who he was as they were walking in the street after leaving a saloon just before the robbery. On cross-examination he said he was told this either in the saloon or in the street. He was then asked whether on a former trial he did not swear that it took place in the saloon. The judge excluded the question. Held that the exclusion was not a plain case of error.
In inquiring into the testimony of a witness on a former trial with a view to his impeachment, it is not necessary to read the testimony from the stenographer's minutes, and then ask him if he swore as there stated. The stenographer's minutes not being written out and signed by him, are not evidence against the witness, and are not therefore to be assumed as correct in his favor.
On a trial for robbery the prosecuting witness testified that he was taken by the prisoner to a house of ill-fame, and thence into the street where he was robbed. The defence then sought to show that the prisoner was not accustomed to visit such places. Held immaterial.
Held also to be immaterial that the prisoner received moneys from various sources about that time; it not being claimed that the stolen money was found in his possession.
The circuit court has the right to pass sentence in criminal cases without waiting for the settlement of any exceptions which may have been taken.
Exceptions from Saginaw.
Tarsney & Weadock and A.C. Maxwell, for plaintiff.
J.J Van Riper, for the people.
Plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted of the robbery of one Henderson, in the city of East Saginaw, on the evening of September 4, 1880. Henderson was a resident of Livingston county, and went to East Saginaw on the day named to purchase casks in which to put up cider. His story was that he went to that place with about $250 in money, $50 of which he gave to a Mr. Brads to expend for him; that having the remainder with him he went into Carter's saloon to inquire for casks and there saw Becker, with whom he was unacquainted; that in the saloon he was induced to play three or four games of cards with Becker and others; that when he left them Becker accompanied him, pretending to be able to show him where casks could be found; that in walking along Becker told him he was a deputy sheriff of Bay county and was or had been a deputy United States marshal; that Becker took him to various places where they inquired for casks but found none that they walked to a brick building on a corner with a saloon underneath and stairs on the outside; that Becker went up the stairs and Henderson hesitated and objected, but Becker insisted, and they went in where there were women and called for something to drink; that Henderson told Becker he wanted to get out and attend to his business; that from there they went into the streets and apparently around several blocks until they heard music, and then Becker wanted Henderson to go in, but he replied he wanted to go to the Everett House; that Becker said after going in he would take him there; that they stopped where the music was, and found a private dance was going on, and were not admitted; that they started along again, and Becker offered to bet that they were not 40 rods from the Everett House and made a movement to get out some money; that Henderson said he would not bet, and would not go any further in that direction; whereupon Becker with an oath seized him, took away his pocket-book and ran off. It was then about 9 o'clock in the evening, and the place was lonely and dark. Henderson immediately made an outcry, and Becker was arrested the next morning.
Becker was twice tried; the jury not agreeing on the first trial. On the second trial, after Henderson had given his account of the transaction, substantially as is above set forth, he was questioned about his journey from Livingston county to East Saginaw and he stated that at Fentonville he received $10.90 for butter which he sold. He was then asked whether on the last trial he did not testify that he got for the butter $18 to $24. The question was objected to, and the court ruled that he need not answer, as it related to a matter collateral to the issue. Whether Henderson had any money on the occasion specified it was of course important to know but where or by whom he obtained it was of no importance. In the record there is no intimation that the fact of his having money was contested. He had sworn to the possession of $200, and that it was in his pocket-book at the time of the robbery. The trial judge might have suffered the defence to question him with a view to test the truthfulness of this statement, but unless the main fact of the possession of the money was contested, it could not have been a matter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial