Mentor v. People
| Decision Date | 21 July 1874 |
| Citation | 30 Mich. 91 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Homer J. Mentor v. The People |
Heard July 15, 1874
Error to Van Buren Circuit.
Judgment affirmed.
Charles L. Fitch, for plaintiff in error.
Isaac Marston, Attorney General, for the People.
Christiancy J.:
The defendant below, plaintiff in error, was brought before a justice upon a warrant issued upon a sworn complaint and examination of the prosecuting attorney of Van Buren county upon a charge of bigamy. The complaint and warrant were in due form.
The complaint being read to the defendant before the justice, he waived an examination, and in default of five hundred dollars bail was committed to prison to await the sitting of the circuit court.
At the first term of the circuit court thereafter the prosecuting attorney presented an information in due form for the offense, which, however, he did not sign, though he attached to it an affidavit in which he swears that he verily believes it to be true.
The defendant, being arraigned upon this information, pleaded thereto not guilty, and it appearing that he was in indigent circumstances, and the court having assigned him counsel, that counsel, two days after, moved to quash the information, and after argument of the motion the circuit court granted the motion, and quashed the information for the reason that it was not signed by the prosecuting attorney, but giving the prosecuting attorney leave to file a new information, which he did; and the defendant being arraigned upon it, and asked to plead, refused so to plead; whereupon the court directed the plea of not guilty to be entered, and proceeded to try the cause; and the defendant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison.
When the prosecuting attorney offered evidence upon the trial to prove the offense, it was objected to on the ground that no evidence was admissible under the information, because: first, one information had already been filed in the cause and quashed, whereby the court was deprived of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, and the court could not recover the jurisdiction by giving the prosecuting attorney leave to file a new information; second, because the defendant had never been arrested upon any complaint charging him with the commission of any offense against the laws of this state, nor had ever waived any examination thereon; third, for a reason not now relied upon; and fourth, that the information is not sufficiently verified. Upon these objections errors are assigned.
We see no ground for the first objection, nor for the second, which grows out of and rests upon it. It is not necessary here to determine whether the first information was valid without the formal signature of the prosecuting attorney, or whether his signature to the affidavit might have been treated as a signature to the information,--though the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Norman, Docket No. 2521
...* * * 'The court had lost no jurisdiction of the prisoner by the void or defective information which had been quashed.' Mentor v. People (1874), 30 Mich. 91, 93. The statute does not prescribe the form of a complaint. The primary function of the complaint is to move the magistrate to determ......
-
In re Boulter
...372; Hicks v. People, 10 id., 395; State v. Graham, 46 Mo. App., 527; State v. Nulf, 15 Kan. 404; State v. Stoffel, 48 id., 364; Mentor v. People, 30 Mich. 91.) Prosecution information is due process of law. (Hurtado v. People, 110 U.S. 516; In re Lowrie, 8 Colo., 511; Kalloch v. Sup. Ct., ......
-
People v. Williams
...and the court could only reacquire jurisdiction upon filing of a new complaint. The court rejected the defendant's argument and declared (pp. 92, 93): 'This information being quashed on the defendant's motion, as no information, the case stood in all respects as if none had before been 'The......
-
People v. Curry
...* * * "The court had lost no jurisdiction of the prisoner by the void or defective information which had been quashed.' Mentor v. People, 30 Mich. 91, 93 (1874). * * 'While an accused cannot be informed against until a judicial determination upon the preliminary examination that a crime has......