Henning v. People
| Decision Date | 25 April 1879 |
| Citation | 40 Mich. 733 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | George Henning v. The People |
Submitted April 22, 1879
Error to Washtenaw and Certiorari to Circuit Judge for Washtenaw County. Submitted April 22. Decided April 25.
Judgment affirmed.
Alpheus Felch and G. V. N. Lothrop for plaintiff in error.
Attorney General Otto Kirchner and J. Willard Babbitt for the People.
Plaintiff in error was informed against for murder in the Washtenaw circuit, and put in a plea of not guilty at the January term, 1877. On the 27th day of March, 1877, on motion of his own counsel and by consent of the prosecuting attorney, he withdrew his plea of not guilty, and put in a plea of guilty of manslaughter. On the 28th day of March, 1877, he was sentenced on his plea of guilty.
Error is brought on this judgment, and the only error assigned alleges as its foundation that the judge before pronouncing sentence did not make any investigation into the nature of the case, and into the circumstances of the plea of guilty, to satisfy him that such plea was made freely and with full knowledge in Henning of the nature of the accusation against him, and without undue influence, as the judge was required to do by statute.
This assignment follows the form and substance of the statute. L. 1875, p. 140.
We declined to hold in Edwards v. People, 39 Mich. 760, that it was necessary to the validity of a sentence that it should appear absolutely on the record how this statutory duty was performed. In that case we held that enough appeared to show the sentence was imposed without such precautions as the law required.
In the present case the record raised no such plain presumption, and when the case was brought to our attention to determine how the facts should be inquired into, we had no difficulty in holding that the proper method was by obtaining a certiorari on a proper showing in aid of the writ of error to obtain a return from the judge touching the facts which attended the proceeding before him. Such a writ was issued.
The judge returns in substance that he had repeated interviews with the prisoner's counsel and friends, and made full inquiry into the matter, and that the change of plea was made with every circumstance of fairness and deliberation, and that he became fully satisfied in advance that Henning's plea of guilty might be properly received; and that it was put in in accordance with all the conditions which the statute was designed to require, and was voluntary and free from undue influence. The return is very full...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Taylor
...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. 777 (1882); People v. Coveyou, 48 Mic......
-
People v. Williams
...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, 355 Mich. 374, 94 N.W.2d 854 (1959) the defendant alleged that his plea of......
-
People v. Williams
...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 guilty would not be upset although his parti......
-
People v. Coates
...manner the judge may have proceeded to satisfy himself that the prisoner acted knowingly and freely in pleading guilty.' In Henning v. People, 40 Mich. 733, 735, the trial court conducted an investigation in advance of the plea of guilty. We there 'The judge returns in substance that he had......