People v. Clarke
| Decision Date | 30 April 1895 |
| Citation | 105 Mich. 169,62 N.W. 1117 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. CLARKE. |
Error to recorder's court of Detroit; William W. Chapin, Judge.
James G. Clarke was convicted of corrupt conduct in canvassing election returns, and appeals. Reversed.
William Look, Thomas J. Navin, and Joseph M. Weiss (Ira G. Humphrey and Edward Minock, of counsel), for appellant.
Allan H. Frazer, Pros. Atty., and Ormond F. Hunt, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Respondent was charged, under section 9367, How. Ann. St., with willful neglect of duty and corrupt conduct in the execution of his duty in canvassing election returns. The information alleges that respondent "was guilty of willful neglect of duty and corrupt conduct in the execution of his duty," etc. The statute provides that if any officer "shall be guilty of any willful neglect of such duty, or of any corrupt conduct in the execution of the same," etc. The information follows the language of the statute, except that the conjunctive, and not the disjunctive, is used, the reference being to a single transaction. The objection is therefore without force.
It is next insisted that the testimony relative to the tabulated sheet should have been excluded as secondary evidence. The testimony traced the book containing the tabulated sheet to a room in an hotel at Lansing, and clearly tended to show that the sheet had been taken from the bound volume in that room by some person unknown, and had not since been seen by the party in whose custody it had up to that time been and who was charged by law with its custody. There is no force in the objection.
The people offered in evidence a statement made by the defendant and reduced to writing by a stenographer. It was claimed by defendant's counsel that this statement was made in the course of the preliminary examination, and, under the act creating the police court of the city of Detroit, was inadmissible. Charter, � 661. An extended colloquy then took place between the court and counsel as to the circumstances under which the statement was made, during which counsel for defendant made the further objection that the statement was involuntary. The statements made during the colloquy were unchallenged, and tended to negative the allegations that the admissions were made as a part of the preliminary investigation before the police justice, or that they were involuntary, and defendant's counsel offered no testimony upon either subject. Under the rule laid down in People v. Barker, 60 Mich. 277, 27 N.W. 539, no error was committed.
The respondent testified with reference to this statement: That when he was arrested, he was taken to the office of the prosecuting attorney, who took him into a room. "Told me that he had conclusive evidence that I knew all about it, and that, if I had anything to say, to say it now; that, if I wanted to make a confession I would have to make it before twelve o'clock that night, or it wouldn't go." That he was then taken to the Central police station. That "the next man that I saw was Dr Frank Houp, the druggist on the corner of Sixth and Michigan avenue, an intimate friend of mine. Afterwards Dr. Houp came to the cell with the officer, and told me that I must make a confession to Mr. Frazer, and that I would have to make it before twelve o'clock; that Mr. Frazer told him I was to be without bail; that I couldn't get bail; and that I would rot on the damn planks if I didn't make a confession. He held up my family to me. Told me, if I knew anything, to say it, and save the children and my wife. *** After Mr. Houp left there that evening, I waited until nearly twelve o'clock, and I sent after Mr. Frazer, according to directions of Mr. Houp, his instructions to me. Mr. Frazer came down there, I think, between 11:30 and 12 o'clock. Mr. Frazer called in an attendant there,-a turnkey, or whatever you may call him. Told him to unlock the door and let me out. We went around into the back room. Mr. Frazer asked me what I had to say, and I said I didn't think I had anything to say what would be of any benefit to him on the case. He says: 'I know all about this case, and I know you put the figures on there, and, if you don't make a confession to me, you'll stay here until you rot.' I asked Mr. Frazer if I could ask him a few questions before he said anything. He said I could. I think I also said that 'you're my attorney,' laughing. I also said 'Now, Mr. Frazer, if I don't say anything to you that would be of benefit to you, what time do I get out of here to-morrow morning?' Mr. Frazer says: 'Just as soon as I can make out the papers.' I asked how long that would be. He said: I said: 'Do you think I will be out of here to-morrow?' And he said: I said: 'Mr. Frazer, another question is, what will be the result with me in case I should say anything that will be of benefit to you?' He said: 'You ought to have confidence enough in me to know that I will take care of you.' Next morning Mr. Frazer sent an officer for me. I suppose he did. The officer came at last. The officer didn't say anything. I supposed it was bail. I was very anxious to get out. Instead of that, it was to come to Mr. Frazer's office with an officer. I can't remember whether a stenographer was there. I think there were several reporters sitting around the table taking pictures, or something of that kind, and Mr. Green was there. Mr. Frazer called me in his private office with Mr. Green. Turned around, and asked me if I wanted to talk to Mr. Green privately, and I think I nodded my head, 'Yes.' Mr. Frazer went...
To continue reading
Request your trial