Hill v. People
| Decision Date | 09 April 1873 |
| Citation | 26 Mich. 496 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Benjamin Hill v. The People |
Submitted on Briefs January 10, 1873.
Error to Bay circuit.
Judgment of the court affirmed.
John McNamara, for plaintiff in error.
Byron D. Ball, Attorney General, for the People.
The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the circuit court for Bay county, for burglary.
After several witnesses had testified on the part of the people and before the prosecution had rested, the prosecuting attorney called one William Grandy as a witness. The defendant (plaintiff in error) objected to his being sworn, and to his competency, because his name was not indorsed upon the information upon which he was being tried. But it being satisfactorily shown to the court, that the prosecuting attorney was not apprised that Grandy was a material witness before the trial commenced, nor until the time he was thus called, the court permitted his name to be then indorsed on the information; and the witness was sworn, and testified to admissions made to him by the defendant, tending to prove his guilt. The admission of this evidence is the only error assigned.
The common law did not require the names of any of the witnesses to be indorsed upon the indictment, for any purpose connected with the trial. But, as the witnesses who were to testify before the grand jury, were sworn in open court before they were sent before the grand jury, a list of the witnesses intended to be examined before that jury, was required to be indorsed on the back of the bill, as drawn up to be laid before them. This was required for two purposes: First, that the crier or other officer whose duty it was to swear the witness, might know who were to be called and sworn, and that he might certify to their being sworn, which he did, by adding after their names, "sworn in court;" and second, that the grand jury might know what witness to call, and who had been sworn: See Archbold's Cr. Pl., by Waterman, 98; 1 Chitty's Cr. L., 318.
In this mode, it is true, a defendant indicted for a misdemeanor, incidentally got the benefit of a list of the witnesses who had testified before the grand jury; because, in cases of misdemeanor he was entitled to a copy of the indictment; but in cases of felony, he failed to receive even this incidental benefit, as in such cases he was not entitled to a copy of the indictment: 1 Chitty's Cr. L., 303-305.
But our statutes have adopted a fairer and more humane principle; and section nineteen of chapter 164 of the Revised Statutes of 1846 (Comp. L., 1871, § 7897), while it recognizes the right of the prosecution to avail itself of any testimony besides that given before the grand jury, and all subsequently discovered evidence, provides that "Indictments found by a grand jury, with the names of the complainant and all the witnesses indorsed on the back thereof, shall be presented by the foreman," etc. This provision clearly applies only to the witnesses sworn before the grand jury; and would not prevent the calling of any other witnesses, though their names were not so indorsed: Commonwealth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pearson
...upon indictment.The indictment statute has a similar requirement of indorsement. M.C.L. § 767.25; M.S.A. § 28.965. See, also, Hill v. People, 26 Mich. 496 (1873).3 Other portions of the statute have been amended. 1927 P.A. 175, ch. VII, § 40; 1929 P.A. 24, ch. VII, § 40; 1955 P.A. 184, § 1;......
-
State v. Myers
...did not require the names of any of the witnesses to be indorsed upon the indictment for any purpose connected with the trial. In Hill v. People, 26 Mich. 496, Christancy, C. J., said: "But, as the witnesses who were to testify before the grand jury were sworn in open court before they were......
-
Boulter v. State
...statute, quoted supra, but where the qualifying restrictions of Section 3 of our statute have not been incorporated in the law. Hill v. People, 26 Mich. 496; People Hall, 48 Mich. 482, 12 N.W. 665; People v. Price, 74 Mich. 37, 41 N.W. 853; People v. Howes, 81 Mich. 396, 45 N.W. 961; Steven......
-
People v. Rose
...it was to swear the witnesses might know who were to be called and sworn, and that he might certify to their having been sworn. Hill v. People, 26 Mich. 496. When informations were substituted for indictments by Act No. 138, Laws of 1859 it was provided the provisions of Act No. 77, Laws of......