People v. Blanchard

• Decision Date: 23 March 1904
• Citation: 136 Mich. 146,98 N.W. 983
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BLANCHARD et al.

98 N.W. 983

136 Mich. 146

PEOPLE v. BLANCHARD et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 23, 1904

Error to Circuit Court, Houghton County; Albert T. Streeter, Judge.

Fred Blanchard and another were convicted of assault with intent to rob, and bring error.Affirmed.

P. H. O'Brien, for appellants.

Oscar J. Larson, Pros.Atty., for the People.

GRANT J.

Under an information charging the respondents with the robbery of one Mansau, they were convicted of assault with intent to rob.Mansau was a peddler, and claimed to have been robbed at a lumber camp where the respondents were employed.There are numerous assignments of error, but counsel for the respondents divide them into two classes--those directed against the sufficiency of the evidence, and those directed against the charge of the court and refusals to give certain requests.

1.There is a conflict of evidence.The prosecuting witness Mansau, testified positively to facts which, if true, showed that the respondent Blanchard actually took money from his person, and that respondent McLeod attempted to do it.The respondents and other witnesses present at the time of the affair gave testimony tending to show the innocence of the respondents.In criminal cases, where there is a conflict this court will not weigh the evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.People v. Henssler,48 Mich. 49, 11 N.W. 804;People v Hubbard,92 Mich. 323, 52 N.W. 729.

2.Even though the evidence on the part of the people, if believed showed that respondent Blanchard was guilty of robbery, he still could be convicted of the lesser offense of assault with intent to rob.Hall v. People,47 Mich. 636, 11 N.W. 414;People v. Miller,96 Mich. 119, 55 N.W. 675.

3.Error is assigned upon the refusal to instruct the jury that there was no testimony tending to show any concerted action between the respondents, or between them or either of them with anybody else, and that neither of the respondents could be responsible for what anybody else did while the peddler was in the camp.The rights of each of the respondents were sufficiently protected by the following instruction of the court: 'Bearing in mind what I have said, you are to consider the case of the defendants separately.In order to convict either defendant, howecer, of the charge made against him in this information, there should be evidence against such defendant which convinces you, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the guilt of that particular defendant.While these defendants are tried together and are charged with a joint offense, it is necessary that evidence should be given against each one of them, and it is within the power of the jury, and it is the duty of the jury, to consider the case of each defendant separately, as though he were on trial here alone; and if the evidence is not sufficient to convict him no matter whether it is sufficient to convict the other or not, then you should consider the case of each one...