People v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 06 March 1884 |
| Citation | 53 Mich. 60,18 N.W. 561 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ANDERSON. |
If the affidavit for continuance had contained a statement showing the importance of the testimony of the absent witness, the action of the court in refusing the continuance might be held to violate a constitutional right of the prisoner; but as there is no showing as to what such witness was expected to prove, and as we are not prepared to say that it was a fatal error, the judgment is affirmed.
The point as to the challenge to the array on the supposed ground of the illegality of the Wayne county jury is decided in the case preceding this. People v. Harding, 18 N.W. 555.
Exceptions from recorder's court, Detroit.
J.J. Van Riper, for plaintiff.
John G. Hawley, for defendant.
This case presents two questions,--one upon a challenge to the array, based on the supposed illegality of the Wayne county jury commission; and the other upon the refusal of the court to continue the case on the ground of absence of a witness. The charge was larceny from the person. The crime was alleged to have been committed August 21, 1883. The prisoner was arraigned September 4, 1883, and put on trial on the 7th. The record does not show when he was examined, but it shows that he was at once arrested and confined in jail, and that having no money or counsel, he was unable to make any preparation for his defense; that on the day of his arraignment the prisoner's friends retained Mr. Hawley as his counsel. The affidavit for continuance shows that the respondent has fully and fairly stated to his counsel what he expected to prove by John Morgan, and was advised that Morgan was a material and necessary witness, without whose testimony he could not safely proceed to trial, and that he had a good defense on the merits; that Morgan lives in Hamilton Ontario, and respondent could not promise his personal attendance at the then present term, but could get his presence on deposition for the next term. The court refused the continuance, stating two reasons: First, that the affidavit did not conform to the rule, in not stating what was expected to be proved by the witness; and, second, that the complaining witness was a non-resident, who had come voluntarily to testify, and could only be retained by putting him under recognizance. It does not strike us that the convenience of a prosecuting witness should govern in crowding a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Taylor, Docket No. 79360
...rule designed to deal with the problem of the last minute plea for continuance. See Michigan Court Rule 36 (1945). People v. Anderson, 53 Mich. 60, 18 N.W. 561 (1884), involving 1853 Circuit Court Rule 55.33 Accord, People v. Collier, 16 Mich.App. 695, 168 N.W.2d 623 (1969); People v. Mason......
-
People v. Knox
...made to make the showing contemplated by Michigan Court Rule 36 as the basis for a motion for a continuance. See, also, People v. Anderson, 53 Mich. 60, 18 N.W. 561; Kome v. Kome, 335 Mich. 282, 285, 55 N.W.2d 831. Neither was there any assurance as to when the witness would be brought into......
-
People v. Burwell
... ... 1. The ... application for a continuance was within the discretion of ... the circuit judge. The application did not state what he ... proposed to prove by the witnesses whose presence he desired ... Several of them were produced and testified. People v ... Anderson, 53 Mich. 61, 18 N.W. 561; People v ... Foote, 93 Mich. 40, 52 N.W. 1036 ... 2. The ... respondent was not prejudiced by the action of the ... prosecuting attorney in failing to indorse upon the ... information, at the time of filing it, the names of all his ... witnesses. Only one ... ...
-
People v. Mason
... ... The practice and rules ... of court require such applications to be supported by ... affidavit showing the necessity for delay, and, in the ... absence of such showing, it was not error to overrule the ... [63 ... Mich. 512] The case of People v. Anderson, 53 Mich ... 60, S.C. 18 N.W. 561, is cited by counsel for respondent as ... an authority in his favor. In that case the application for a ... continuance was supported by affidavit showing the absence of ... a material witness, and that the accused had a good defense ... upon the merits, but ... ...