People v. Earl, 83.
| Decision Date | 02 December 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 83.,83. |
| Citation | 300 N.W. 890,299 Mich. 579 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. EARL. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Archie J. Earl was convicted of accepting a bribe, and he appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Ingham County; Charles H. Hayden, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
John Wendell Bird, of Lansing, for defendant-appellant.
Herbert J. Rushton, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., and Richard B. Foster, Pros. Atty., of Lansing, for the People.
Upon trial by jury defendant, a public executive officer, was convicted of accepting a bribe. The information was not in short form and laid the charge under Act No. 328, Pub.Acts 1931, § 118, Stat.Ann. § 28.313, known as the Michigan Criminal Code. Defendant, in 1938, was one of the three road commissioners for Ingham county. The commission contemplated the purchase of a motor grader, and it was claimed that defendant was promised 10 per cent of the price of such grader by a sales agent if it was purchased from the company he represented. The full commission voted to purchase that particular grader at the price of $5,229.40, less 2 per cent. discount, if paid within 60 days. The purchase was made, the money paid and defendant was convicted of receiving from such agent, in pursuance of the mentioned promise and his official action thereunder, the sum of $417.50. Defendant reviews by appeal and assigns many errors.
At the preliminary examination defendant was present with his counsel and the testimony fully informed him of the nature and elements of the charge, justified holding him for trial in the circuit court, obviated need of a bill of particulars, and there was no departure therefrom at the trial. People v. McKinney, 10 Mich. 54.
The information followed the wording of the statute, stated an offense thereunder, and defendant's several motions to quash were without merit.
The testimony at the trial was to the effect that James D. Gladden, sales agent for the J. O. Adams Company, dealers in motor graders, visited the county garage at Mason, and there requested Don Miller, an employee of the road commission, to inform defendant ‘there would be ten per cent on that grader and he would see Mr. Earl Thursday night’; that Mr. Miller so informed Mr. Earl and Mr. Earl said, ‘All right, I will be home’. Thereafter, defendant voted for the grader, as did the other commissioners. Mr. Gladden later received, by mail, a check for $517.50, payable to Earl Boughton, Mr. Boughton endorsed and cashed it at a Jackson bank, placed it in an envelop, sealed and handed it to Gladden, who placed it in his pocket and the two then drove to Mason to see defendant, not finding him there, drove to his home in Lansing, finding him absent, drove to the Lansing airport where Gladden, not in the presence of Boughton, removed $100 from the envelop and later, at defendant's home, handed the envelop with $417.50 in it to defendant, with the remark, ‘This is some literature’, and defendant placed it in his pocket.
Gladden testified that about a year later he had a conversation with defendant in which he informed him that an investigation of the matter of the check was being made, and defendant said. ‘I wonder what Mr. Boughton is going to say’. This testimony was admitted over defendant's objection and was proper, along with the other testimony, for consideration by the jury.
Defendant did not offer any evidence, but moved for a directed verdict in his favor at the close of the proofs introduced by the prosecution and, upon denial of his motion, rested his case on the people's proof.
The proofs presented issues for the jury and fully supported the verdict of guilty.
In his argument to the jury the prosecutor stated:
It is claimed this was comment upon the failure of defendant to testify and was serious error.
It was the right of defendant to let his case rest upon the testimony introduced by the prosecution, but this did not curtail argument on the proofs before the jury, and it is too farfetched for him to characterize what was said as prejudicial comment on the failure of defendant to testify.
Counsel for defendant contends that inasmuch as defendant was the only person who could dispute or deny the testimony against him, the statement was a comment on his failure to testify and in violation of § 14218, Comp.Laws 1929, Stat.Ann. § 27.913, which provides: ‘That a defendant in any criminal case or proceeding shall only at his own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Missouri
...Jones, supra, 75 Mich.App. at 269-270, 254 N.W.2d 863, People v. McKinney,[100 MICHAPP 332] 10 Mich. 54, 92 (1862), People v. Earl, 299 Mich. 579, 581, 300 N.W. 890 (1941), People v. Harbour, 76 Mich.App. 552, 556-557, 257 N.W.2d 165 (1977), lv. den. 402 Mich. 832 In the case at bar, most o......
-
People v. Perry
...that such comment is acceptable even if the defendant was the only person who could provide contrary testimony. People v. Earl, 299 Mich. 579, 582-583, 300 N.W. 890 (1941); People v. Jacoboni, 34 Mich.App. 84, 86, 190 N.W.2d 720 (1971). Other authorities indicate the contrary. People v. Pay......
-
People v. Jones
...the nature and the elements of the charges against him. These factors "obviated need of a bill of particulars". People v. Earl, 299 Mich. 579, 581, 300 N.W. 890, 892 (1941); People v. McKinney, supra. There was no abuse of discretion. People v. Southern, 306 Mich. 324, 326, 10 N.W.2d 901 (1......
-
People v. Fields
...Spivey and Shannon, supra, and may observe that the evidence against the defendant is "uncontroverted" or "undisputed," People v. Earl, 299 Mich. 579, 300 N.W. 890 (1941), even if defendant is the only one who could have contradicted the evidence, People v. Cummings, 139 Mich.App. 286, 362 ......