Campbell v. People
| Decision Date | 21 June 1876 |
| Citation | 34 Mich. 351 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William Campbell v. The People |
Submitted on Briefs June 14, 1876
Error to St. Clair Circuit.
Judgment affirmed.
Atkinson & Stevenson, for plaintiff in error.
Andrew J. Smith, Attorney General, for the People.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of an assault with intent to ravish, upon an information which charged only the commission of the principal offense. One of the errors assigned is, tat the information does not support the conviction
The previous rulings of this court in People v McDonald, 9 Mich. 150, and Hanna v. People, 19 Mich. 316, are decisive of the point made. In each of those cases it was decided that under an indictment charging a specific offense it was competent for the jury to find the respondent guilty of a lesser offense included in it. The lesser offense of felonious assault is necessarily included in the offense of rape; the completed offense being the aggravation of the criminal assault.
Exception was also taken to the reception in evidence of the return of the justice before whom the prisoner had his preliminary examination. This was objected to on the trial, but no reason was assigned for the objection. We think it too late to assign any now.
The defendant gave evidence of good character and reputation, and requested the court to instruct the jury as follows: "Good character is an important fact with any man, and never more so than when upon trial for a crime such as is charged in this case, and may not only raise a doubt of guilt which would not otherwise exist, but may bring a conviction of innocence; and if you find that the defendant was a man of good character and reputation, you will consider this in relation to the other circumstances in the case, and give it such weight as it is entitled to in the light of the law as here given you." The court, instead of giving this instruction, substituted the following:
This substitution is excepted to; the respondent insisting upon his right to the instructions requested. But while we think the court might...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McCrea
...McCrea's previous good character. People v. Barrette, 233 Mich. 615, 208 N.W. 27;People v. Mathews, 207 Mich. 526, 174 N.W. 532;Campbell v. People, 34 Mich. 351. Furthermore, McCrea's requested charge should not have been given in the form presented, because it clearly attempted to focus th......
-
People v. Schultz, 75.
...such language might be criticized as giving undue emphasis to the subject. For a request which was approved by this court, see Campbell v. People, 34 Mich. 351, and see People v. Garbutt, supra; People v. McArron, 121 Mich. 1, 79 N.W. 944;People v. Covelesky, 217 Mich. 90, 185 N.W. 770; and......
-
People v. Worrell
...and abuse, the accused may be convicted of assault with intent to commit such carnal knowledge and abuse or of simple assault. Campbell v. People, 34 Mich. 351, People v. McDonald, 9 Id.Mich. 150, Hanna v. People, 19 Id.Mich. 316." The Courts subsequently have held that a defendant's intent......
-
People v. Mendoza
...(1884) (a conviction for simple assault may be had on any information charging assault on an officer and resisting arrest); Campbell v. People, 34 Mich. 351 (1876) ("... under an indictment charging a specific offense it was competent for the jury to find the respondent guilty of a lesser o......