Hicks v. Boyne

Decision Date08 December 1926
Docket NumberMotion No. 119.
Citation236 Mich. 689,211 N.W. 35
PartiesHICKS v. BOYNE, Judge, et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Mandamus by John W. L. Hicks against John A. Boyne, Judge of the Recorder's Court of the City of Detroit, and others, to compel respondent to give him an immediate trial. Writ granted, if necessary.

Argued before the Entire Bench.John W. L. Hicks, of Detroit (Charles C. Stewart, of Detroit, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Robert M. Toms, Pros. Atty., and Van H. Ring, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Detroit, for defendants.

BIRD, C. J.

On the 28th day of May, 1925, plaintiff was complained of and arrested in Wayne county for the crime of perjury in connection with his testimony before the probate court in the matter of probating a will. He was arraigned before the examining recorder on June 15th. He was given an examination on June 19th. On August 25, 1925, he was held to the recorder's court for trial. His trial was set for July 15, 1926. Plaintiff was present with his witnesses, but the matter was adjourned on application of the prosecutor. His trial was again set for September 16, 1926. Plaintiff was again present with his witnesses. On that date the matter was adjourned indefinitely upon the application of the prosecutor, and the reason assigned therefor was that the will case had not yet been tried in the circuit court where it was pending. Despairing of getting a hearing in the recorder's court, he has appealed to this court for a writ of mandamus to direct the recorder's court to give him an immediate trial.

The Michigan Constitution provides:

‘In every criminal prosecution, the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.’ Article 2, § 19.

In view of this constitutional provision, it becomes necessary to inquire what a speedy trial means. We apprehend it means such reasonable time under all the attendant circumstances as will give the people an opportunity to present its case in court. 16 C. J. 439. A speedy trial does not mean that the respondent is entitled to have his trial commence immediately after being bound over to the trial court. What would be a reasonable time in one case would be perhaps unreasonable in another. The question might be affected by the gravity of the offense, the number of witnesses involved, the terms of court, and many other circumstances. Owing to this, much must necessarily be left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court must exercise its best judgment upon such applications, keeping in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Klopfer v. State of North Carolina, 100
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1967
    ...Jones v. Commonwealth, 114 Ky. 599, 71 S.W. 643 (1903); Barrett v. State, 155 Md. 636, 142 A. 96 (1928); Hicks v. Judge of Recorder's Court of Detroit, 236 Mich. 689, 211 N.W. 35 (1926); State v. Artz, 154 Minn. 290, 191 N.W. 605 (1923). See also Jacobson v. Winter, 91 Idaho 11, 415 P.2d 29......
  • People v. Collins
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1972
    ...of the case. 'What would be a reasonable time in one case would be perhaps unreasonable in another.' Hicks v. Judge of Recorder's Court of Detroit, 236 Mich. 689, 690, 211 N.W. 35 (1926). In People v. Shufelt, 61 Mich. 237, 28 N.W. 79 (1886) this Court decided that a 21 day delay did not vi......
  • People v. Chambers
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • October 25, 1968
    ...U.S. 905, 85 S.Ct. 198, 13 L.Ed.2d 178; Howard v. United States (CA 5, 1958), 261 F.2d 729. As noted in Hicks v. Recorder's Court of Detroit (1926), 236 Mich. 689, 690, 211 N.W. 35: 'In view of this constitutional provision it becomes necessary to inquire what a speedy trial means. We appre......
  • People v. Duncan
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • October 6, 1964
    ...guaranteed right to a speedy trial. We have had occasion before to address our attention to such demands. Hicks v. Judge of Recorder's Court of Detroit, 236 Mich. 689, 211 N.W. 35; People v. Foster, 261 Mich. 247, 246 N.W. 60, and People v. Den Uyl, 320 Mich. 477, 31 N.W.2d 699. Only in Fos......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT