People v. Coughlin

• Decision Date: 03 November 1887
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. COUGHLIN.

35 N.W. 72

67 Mich. 466

PEOPLE v. COUGHLIN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 3, 1887

Error to circuit court, Chippewa county; J.H. STEERE, Judge.

Brennan & Donnelly, (Lawrence F. Bedford, of counsel,) for defendant, appellant.

Moses Taggart, Atty. Gen., and John H. Goff, Pros. Atty., for the People.

MORSE J.

The respondent was convicted of the crime of manslaughter in the circuit court for the county of Chippewa, for shooting and killing one Joseph Perault.

It is complained, first, as a reason for the reversal of this conviction, that a legal jury was not summoned at the term of court in which his trial took place. A motion was entered challenging the array for the following reasons: "First. Said panel was not drawn fourteen days before the first day of the term. Second. Because more than the lawful number was summoned, thirty-five being drawn instead of twenty-four. Third. Because there are eight townships and supervisor districts in the county of Chippewa, and it appears from the certificate of the officers drawing said jury that no jurors were summoned or drawn from two of said townships, one of which, 'Sugar Island,' was the scene of the killing and such certificate does not state whether the jurors drawn from Sault Ste. Marie were summoned from the village or township of that name. Fourth. Because the order directing the drawing and summoning of said jury is irregular and insufficient." The prosecuting attorney stood on said challenge as of a demurrer. The court sustained the demurrer and overruled said challenge. In the argument in this court the first objection is abandoned, but the others are insisted upon. We think the challenge was properly overruled.

The second and fourth objections may be considered together. At the opening of the term the circuit judge made the following order: "No petit jurors having been drawn and summoned for this term of court, and it satisfactorily appearing to the court now here that the attendance of said jurors is necessary, it is therefore hereby ordered and directed that thirty-five qualified jurors be forthwith drawn and summoned in pursuance of the statute in such cases made and provided, to be and appear in said court at the court-house, in the village of Sault Ste. Marie, in said county, without delay, to serve as such petit jurors." It is claimed, upon the authority of People v. Hall, 48 Mich. 482, 12 N.W. 665, that this order should have specified the townships from which the jurors were to be drawn, and that the vicinage of the alleged offense should have been included in such order. Under section 7578, How.St., the court could order the jury drawn from the county at large, or from specified townships near the county-seat. In this case the order was that the jurors be drawn and summoned according to law, which would be from the county at large, as specified and directed by the statute. The objection to the jury drawn in the case of People v. Hall was that they were neither a jury of the vicinage, nor a jury of the county at large, nor one desired by the judge himself for the general purposes of the term. "It was therefore not sanctioned by law." See People v. Hall, at page 487.

The order in this case was legal, as it directed a jury to be drawn and summoned from the body of the county for the general purposes of the term, and it appears that 35 were none too many for the exigencies of the term, as talesmen had to be summoned to complete the panel in this case. There is no cause of complaint because 35 men were drawn instead of 24.

In relation to the third objection, if it anywhere appeared that the officers who drew the jury had arbitrarily left out the townships from which jurors were not drawn, it would have been a good cause for quashing the array. But it does not so appear. The burden of proof was on the respondent to show the invalidity of the proceedings by which the jury was obtained. In the absence of a showing to the contrary, it must be presumed that these officers faithfully and correctly performed their duty in the premises.

We held in People v. Coffman, 59 Mich. 1, 26 N.W. 207, that the omission of the supervisor to return a list of names from one township would not destroy the legality of a jury drawn from the body of the county, and from the lists returned from the other townships according to law. And it will be seen by examining the whole statute, as to the selection of jurymen from the lists returned, that it may often happen that within any year the lists from one or more townships may be exhausted by previous drawings. The lists are made in reference to the population of the supervisor districts, and therefore some of them may send but a very few names to the clerk. How.St. � 7556. The names of those drawn at any trial are not to be returned to the packages until the list shall have been exhausted. How.St. � 7567. It is also a cause of challenge to a juror if within a year he has been a member of a panel of jurors in the same court. How.St. � 7582. It was evidently intended by the legislature that when a person had been drawn from the list of any township, and served once on a panel, he should not be drawn again within the year. It is also provided that if any name is drawn of one who is dead or insane, or who has permanently removed from the county, such name shall be withdrawn and destroyed, and another name drawn from the same package instead thereof. How.St. � 7567, subd. 4. It is therefore possible that the lists from the townships omitted in this drawing had been exhausted. There being no showing that such lists had not been exhausted under the provisions of the statute, it must be presumed that they had been, and for that reason no jurors were drawn and summoned from those townships. It was for the respondent to clearly show a violation of duty upon the part of the summoning officers. We cannot presume it.

Shortly after the shooting of the deceased by the respondent, and while Coughlin was under arrest and in the county jail, one Oren, a reporter for a newspaper called the "Chippewa County News," interviewed the respondent. He had with him an article from another newspaper, the Sault Ste. Marie Democrat. The article was handed to the respondent, who read the whole of it. When Oren was on the stand as a witness for the prosecution, he gave an account of this interview, and stated...