People v. Baker

• Citation: 70 N.W. 431,112 Mich. 211
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 23 March 1897
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BAKER.

70 N.W. 431

112 Mich. 211

PEOPLE v. BAKER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 23, 1897

Exceptions from circuit court, Eaton county; Clement Smith, Judge.

Charles Baker was convicted of burglary, and excepts. Affirmed.

Fred A Maynard, Atty. Gen., and Horace S. Maynard, Pros. Atty., for the People.

Alvan G. Fleury and J. M. C. Smith, for defendant.

MOORE J.

The respondent has been tried for and convicted of the offense of burglary. Mr. Maynard opened the cause to the jury for the people, stating "that, among other things, he expected to show that the respondent, his brother, Adam Baker, and his nephew, John Smith, broke into Charles Tanner's barn, which was within the curtilage, on the night of the 8th of June, 1895, and stole Charles Tanner's wool and that the wool was carried out to the road, and loaded into a buggy, and the buggy was tracked to the house of the respondent; that Charles Tanner procured a warrant to be issued in this case for the arrest of Charles Baker, not knowing that Adam Baker and John Smith had been with the respondent when the wool was taken; that afterwards learning that Adam Baker and John Smith were with the respondent on the night in question, he swore out a warrant for the arrest of Adam Baker and John Smith, who had been arrested, and, upon examination, were bound over to this court, and their case was the next case on the calendar following the case at bar." Counsel for respondent then moved the court for an order requiring the prosecuting attorney to indorse the names of Baker and Smith upon the information, and call them as witnesses for the prosecution. The court refused to make this order, and his refusal is said to be error. It was the claim of the respondent that he was not guilty. The request for the order was based wholly upon the statement of the prosecuting attorney. If that statement was true, not only was the respondent guilty of the offense charged, but Adam Baker and John Smith were alike guilty. We know of no rule of law that requires the prosecution to call as a people's witness a particeps criminis. People v McCullough, 81 Mich. 34, 45 N.W. 515; People v Considine (Mich.) 63 N.W. 199; People v. Resh (Mich.) 65 N.W. 99.

The respondent objected to a question put to Mr. Maston, but before Mr. Maston answered the question, the objection was sustained. John Smith was offered as a witness on the part of the defense, and testified that he was with Baker the night in question, and, in response to questions put by respondent's counsel, testified that at first he denied being with the respondent the night in question, and assigned as a reason that his folks were not on good terms with Baker, and he did not want them to know he was with Baker. On the cross-examination, he was examined about these statements, and if he had not denied being with Mr. Baker, to Mr. Green, the sheriff, and Mr. Nichols, the justice. Objection was made to these questions, on the ground that the witness was under arrest, and could not be examined about statements made when he...