People v. Burridge

• Decision Date: 20 March 1894
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BURRIDGE.

58 N.W. 319

99 Mich. 343

PEOPLE v. BURRIDGE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 20, 1894

Error to circuit court, Berrien county; Thomas O'Hara, Judge.

Jacob Burridge was convicted of arson, and brings error. Affirmed.

Lawrence C. Fyfe and George W. Bridgman, for appellant.

N. A Hamilton, Pros. Atty., for the People.

LONG J.

Respondent was informed against under section 9124, How. St., for burning the dwelling house of one William Duvall in the daytime. Duvall lived by himself in a house situated on land owned by defendant. Just what the arrangement was by which Duvall claimed to have the right to occupy it, does not appear, but it does appear that the defendant was unable to sell the land so long as Duvall remained there. Some two years before the fire, as was testified on the trial by one of the people's witnesses, respondent stated that he wanted to get Duvall off, so he could sell, and that if he did not get off he would burn him off. The fire occurred in the daytime, about noon. Defendant was seen going towards the house with a can partly filled with kerosene oil, and coming back from there with the can empty. A few minutes after flames were seen. No one was in the house at the time. The contention is:

1. That there was no evidence to go to the jury which would authorize a conviction.

We think there was some evidence from which the jury might properly find the respondent guilty of the crime charged.

2. That the sentence imposed was not authorized by law.

The respondent was sentenced to state prison at Jackson for the period of nine months, under section 9124, which provides that the offense "shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years." Counsel claims that imprisonment for nine months is not for "any term of years," and that, therefore, the sentence is void, and the respondent must be discharged. It was said in Re Lamphere, 61 Mich. 108, 27 N.W. 882 that: "There is no crime whatever punishable by our laws, except by virtue of a statutory provision. The punishment of all undefined offenses is fixed within named limits, and beyond the unregulated discretion of the courts." The legislature has fixed the maximum and minimum punishment. The maximum is for life, and the minimum for a term not less than two years, as "any term of years" must be construed for a time not less than two years. The supreme court of Massachusetts, in Ex parte Seymour, 14 Pick. 43, in construing a similar statute, say "We think the natural and legal, as well as the literal and grammatical, construction of the words 'any term of years,' must be a period of time not less than two years." This construction was again given to these words in Ex parte Dick, 14 Pick. 86, and Ex parte White Id. 93. It was said in Elliott v. People, 13 Mich. 365, that where the sentence imposed by the court upon a prisoner is an excess of authority, and therefore unlawful, the court cannot substitute for such sentence a lawful one; and if there is no error, except in the judgment, there can be no new trial, nor can the court below give a second judgment. Hence, the prisoner must be discharged. In O'Neil v. People, 15 Mich. 275, the same rule was stated, and the prisoner was discharged. Since these cases were decided, the legislature, by Act No. 170, Laws 1867, (How. St. � 9614,) has provided that the sentence shall be void only for the excess. But the error here complained of is in respondent's favor. The statute under which the sentence was passed authorizes imprisonment in the state prison at Jackson. This is the place where he is to be confined, according to the sentence passed; and the only error is in making the term of imprisonment shorter, by 15 months, than the minimum fixed by the statute. Under the decisions of the English courts and some of our sister states, it is held that this is not only an erroneous sentence, but that the respondent may take advantage of the error, and be discharged altogether from custody. Whitehead v. Reg., 7 Q. B. 582; Bourne v. Rex, 7 Adol. & E. 58; R...