Edwards v. People
| Decision Date | 22 November 1878 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | George Edwards v. The People |
Submitted October 23, 1878
Error to Washtenaw.
Larceny. Respondent was convicted.
Judgment reversed, and the prisoner discharged.
Hawley & Firnane for plaintiff in error. The record in a criminal case must show that every step necessary to a legal conviction has been taken, as arraignment and plea (Grigg v People, 31 Mich. 471; Aylesworth v. People, 65 Ill 301; Davis v. State, 38 Wis. 487); respondent's presence (Stubbs v. State, 49 Miss. 716); that respondent was asked if he had anything to say as to why judgment should not be pronounced against him, McCue v. Com., 78 Penn. St., 185. See 1 Bish. Cr. Pr., §§ 1178-82.
Attorney General Otto Kirchner for the People.
Plaintiff in error was informed against on a charge of larceny, in the daytime, from a shop, of a gold watch of the value of twenty-five dollars. The information was sworn to on the 25th of June, averring the offense on the 11th. On the same 25th day of June the prisoner was arraigned, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the Ionia house of correction for three years. There is nothing in the record to show his age to have been between sixteen and twenty-five years, although the offense is made by law punishable in the State prison, and the statute organizing the house of correction allows only persons between those ages to be sent there. Public Acts, 1877, p. 173. The information is without the proper conclusion, but that defect is cured by § 7923 of the Compiled Laws.
The error relied on to reverse the judgment is that the court did not make the proper investigation before proceeding to sentence the prisoner, to ascertain whether he ought not to have been put on trial.
It has always been customary, and is according to many authorities essential before sentence to inquire of the prisoner whether he has anything to say why sentence should not be pronounced against him; and this it is generally said should appear of record. It does appear in the record before us. The reason given seems to have been that reasons might be shown which would prevent sentence.
The Legislature of 1875, having in some way had their attention called to serious abuses caused by procuring prisoners to plead guilty when a fair trial might show they were not guilty, or might show other facts important to be known, passed a very plain and significant statute designed for the protection of prisoners and of the public. It was thereby enacted as follows:
It is impossible to regard this statute as merely directory. It does not occur in the midst of other provisions among which it might have been inserted without much attention. It is a single provision in a statute referring to nothing else, and such a statute cannot be regarded as passed without some strong occasion.
It is contrary to public policy to have any one imprisoned who is not clearly guilty of the precise crime charged against him and it is equally contrary to policy and justice to punish any one without some regard to the circumstances of the case. By confining this statute to informations and not extending it to indictments, it is easy to see that the Legislature thought there was danger that prosecuting attorneys, either to save themselves trouble, to save money to the county, or to serve some other improper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Taylor
...that the old practice was to review guilty pleas by writ of error to the Supreme Court, even in the 'voluntary' cases. Edwards v. People, 39 Mich. 760 (1878); Henning v. People, 40 Mich. 733 (1879); Clark v. People, 44 Mich. 308, 6 N.W. 682 (1880); People v. Ferguson, 48 Mich. 41, 11 N.W. 7......
-
People v. Mauch
...validity and reversal resulted only when the record affirmatively showed that the trial court neglected its statutory duty, Edwards v. People, 39 Mich. 760 (1878), or conclusively demonstrated that the plea was involuntary or induced, People v. Merhige, 212 Mich. 601, 180 N.W. 418 In People......
-
People v. Williams
...so equivocal that a Certiorari was issued to secure a return from the judge relative to his action in reference to the statute. Edwards v. People, 39 Mich. 760; Clark v. People, 44 Mich. 308, 6 N.W. 682; Henning v. People, 40 Mich. 733.' 48 Mich. 41, 42, 11 N.W. 777, 778.In People v. Bumpus......
-
People v. Williams
...because of the failure of the trial judge directly to question him before accepting his Pre-Barrows guilty plea.7 See, E.g., Edwards v. People (1878), 39 Mich. 760; Henning v. People (1879), 40 Mich. 733.8 Pre-Barrows cases where it was held that the defendant's conviction upon a plea of gu......
-
Trial distortion and the end of innocence in federal criminal justice.
...trials depends on whether such trials are replaced by private settlements or public, non-trial adjudication). (39) See Edwards v. People, 39 Mich. 760, 763 (1878) (requiring the trial judge to examine the defendant, out of the presence of the prosecutor, about his reasons for pleading guilt......