Cummins v. People

• Decision Date: 30 October 1879
• Citation: 3 N.W. 305,42 Mich. 142
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: WILLIAM CUMMINS v. THE PEOPLE.

3 N.W. 305

42 Mich. 142

WILLIAM CUMMINS v. THE PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 30, 1879

In a trial for burglary, held that evidence tending to show that on the night of the offence defendant and another slept in a barn, and that the stolen articles were found in close proximity to them, and that when the officers went to arrest them the other party resisted and made his escape, was proper to go to the jury and be commented upon by prosecution, Where a bill of exceptions does not contain all the evidence, it will be presumed that the charge given was justified by the evidence. Where the sentenee imposed, on conviction, is within limits provided by statute for the offence, this court cannot reverse on the ground that it is a cruel and unusual punishment, though it may regard it as severe.

Error to Wayne.

Hawley & Firnane, for plaintiff in error.

Otto Kirchner, Attorney General, for the people.

MARSTON J.

We do not discover any error in the record in this case. The evidence tended to show that Cummins and Seipher slept together in a barn, on the night of the burglary, and that in close proximity to them were found the stolen articles, and that when the officers made the arrest Seipher resisted arrest and escaped. We are of opinion that on the trial of Cummins, under such circumstances, the resistance and flight of Seipher was a proper matter to be commented upon by the prosecuting attorney in his argument, and considered by the jury.

It also appeared that, at the time of the arrest, the coat of one of the parties was missing, and complaint is now made of the charge of the court relating to that matter. The bill of exceptions does not set forth all the evidence, or even purport to give the substance thereof. We must assume that the charge, as given, was fully warranted by the evidence. In so far as this question is presented by the record, the appellant has no legal cause of complaint.

It is also alleged as error that the sentence was unusually severe and that, in the light of all the facts, it was in violation of the constitutional provision which declares that "cruel or unusual punishments shall not be inflicted." The sentence was not in excess of that permitted by statute, and when within the statute this court has no supervising control over the punishment that shall be inflicted. The statute gives a wide discretionary power to the trial court, upon the supposition that it will...