Hamilton v. People
| Decision Date | 08 April 1874 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William Hamilton v. The People |
Heard January 28, 1874
Error to Calhoun Circuit.
Information for burning a barn with intent to defraud insurers. Defendant William Hamilton brings error. Reversed and new trial ordered.
Judgment reversed, and a new trial granted, and the plaintiff in error remanded to the custody of the sheriff until bailed or otherwise dealt with according to law.
Brown & Patterson and M. S. Brackett, for plaintiff in error.
Byron D. Ball, Attorney General, for the People.
Christiancy J., did not sit in this case.
This case was argued in connection with that of Thomas W. Hamilton (supra p. 173), as they were separately tried under the same information. Many of the points raised in the two cases are identical. No reference, therefore, will be made in this opinion to the points disposed of in the former case. The proof, as in that case, depended chiefly on the testimony of William Fuller, one of the defendants below, who became a witness for the People. He had sworn to an original conversation with Thomas and William Hamilton in regard to getting up a dance, and during its progress having a light put where it would, after burning down, reach combustibles in the barn. He was then asked whether he had any conversation with James Hamilton on the day of the fire, in a certain field. The question was objected to on the ground that he had not been present or taken part in the conspiracy, if there had been one; but the court overruled the objection, and Fuller testified to a remark concerning the dance, in a field where one Duane Patchin was present, to the effect that it was not desirable to have Patchin at the dance because he could not keep his mouth shut; and that James made him believe there were turkeys in another field near by, and induced him to go there. It requires some imagination to discover any particular force in this testimony to make out a conspiracy, but the objection went to the question and not merely to the answer. As the case stood at the time, we are inclined to think the question was objectionable, without at least an assurance that the evidence sought was intended to connect James with the others. No such assurance was given, and the effect of the ruling was to intimate that the defendant on trial might be chargeable with the conduct of an entire stranger to the plot, if there was a plot.
The respondent below was not permitted, on cross-examination, to ask Fuller whether he had not told one Gleason that he had pleaded guilty, and that he would not go to State's prison alone, or that he would have company. This refusal was erroneous. It was proper cross-examination bearing upon the disposition of Fuller, and in our judgment quite material. It could only refer to his co-defendants.
The questions in regard to James Mulvany, who was not sworn as a witness, are referred to in the other case.
Thomas Mulvany testified to some difficulties between the Hamiltons and his father, involving a law suit and a fight or squabble. The court refused to permit him to be asked whether he had become interested in those things. We think the question pertinent as bearing on his bias. For the same reason he should have been allowed to be questioned as to his statement that "if ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Schultz, 75.
...where doubt otherwise exists, but may be offered for the purpose of creating a doubt. See People v. Garbutt, 17 Mich. 9 , and Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 195.’ People v. Jassino, 1894, 100 Mich. 536, 537, 59 N.W. 230. ‘The conviction must, however, be set aside for other reasons. Several w......
-
Hileman v. Indreica
...which would not occur to him until his memory had been refreshed by hearing the paper read. Lightfoot v. People, 16 Mich. 507; Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 195; Toohey v. Plummer, 69 Mich. 345, 37 N.W. 297; DeMay v. Roberts, 46 Mich. 160, 9 N.W. 146 (41 Am.Rep. 154).' Reversed and remanded ......
-
People v. Huff
...See also, Proposed Criminal Jury Instructions 5:2:05-5:2:08, and commentary following.7 400 Mich. 253, 268, 253 N.W.2d 626 (1977).8 29 Mich. 195 (1874).9 50 Mich. 228, 233, 15 N.W. 95 (1883).10 133 F.2d 966, 972 (CA 10, 1943).11 122 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 156; 352 F.2d 449 (1965).12 Proposed Cri......
-
People v. Elauim
...he said he would testify at the trial, then he had made a statement inconsistent with his testimony at the trial. 3 In Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 195, 197--198 (1874), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the defendant Hamilton should have been allowed to introduce into evidence a written......