People v. Boyd
| Decision Date | 24 July 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 100.,100. |
| Citation | 228 Mich. 57,199 N.W. 662 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BOYD. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William J. Boyd was convicted of violating the prohibition law. On exceptions before sentence. Conviction affirmed.
Argued before CLARK, C. J., and McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.J. Culver Riggs, Pros. Atty., of Hillsdale, for the People.
Merton Fitzpatrick of Hillsdale, for defendant.
This is review, on exceptions before sentence, of defendant's conviction of a violation of the prohibition law.
The 17th day of August, 1921, officers followed two men into defendant's place of business in the city of Hillsbale and seized, without a search warrant, two glasses of hard cider there furnished the men. An analysis of the cider disclosed upward of 5 per cent. of alcohol. On Saturday, October 8, 1923, defendant's counsel served a motion to suppress the evidence seized by the officers, and noticed the same for hearing on Monday, October 10th, that being the first day of the October term of the circuit court for the county of Hillsdale.
Circuit court rule No. 15 requires four days' notice of motions, and, upon objection by the prosecuting attorney, the trial judge declined to hear the motion. The case was reached for trial the next day, and defendant was tried and convicted. This court stands firmly committed to the procedure requiring a motion to suppress evidence to be made before trial. People v. Campbell, 160 Mich. 108, 125 N. W. 42,136 Am. St. Rep. 417;People v. Marxhausen, 204 Mich. 559, 171 N. W. 557, 3 A. L. R. 1505;People v. Miller, 217 Mich. 635, 187 N. W. 366;People v. Perrin, 223 Mich. 132, 193 N. W. 888;People v. Vulje, 223 Mich. 656, 194 N. W. 582.
In the Vulje Case we held to the procedure mentioned, and applied the rule requiring four days' notice of such a motion, and such is the rule unless the court, in its discretion, on good cause shown, shortens the time. No cause was shown and none existed in the case at bar for shortening the time, as several terms of the circuit court had intervened between defendant's arrest and trial, and therefore ample opportunity had been afforded for presenting such motion.
The Vulje Case is controlling, and, as defendant's other assignments of error have no merit, the conviction is affirmed, and the circuit court advised to proceed to judgment.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kerwin
...217 Mich. 635, 187 N. W. 366;People v. Vulje, 223 Mich. 656, 194 N. W. 582;People v. Coffey, 225 Mich. 532, 196 N. W. 345;People v. Boyd, 228 Mich. 57, 199 N. W. 662. Error is assigned upon certain portions of the charge. We have read it with care, and are satisfied that defendant's rights ......
-
People v. Londe
...on opposing counsel at least four days prior to the date set for hearing. People v. Vulje, 223 Mich. 656, 194 N. W. 582;People v. Boyd, 228 Mich. 57, 199 N. W. 662. This motion was not made until after the case was called and the jury was about to be impaneled. No notice was given the prose......
- People v. Flaugher