People v. Ezzo

• Decision Date: 12 March 1895
• Citation: 104 Mich. 341,62 N.W. 407
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. EZZO.

62 N.W. 407

104 Mich. 341

PEOPLE v. EZZO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 12, 1895

Error to superior court of Grand Rapids; Edwin A. Burlingame Judge.

Donato Ezzo was convicted of the crime of rape, and brings error. Affirmed.

Samuel D. Clay and Nathan P. Allen, for appellant.

Fred A Maynard, Atty. Gen., and Alfred Wolcott, Pros. Atty., for the People.

GRANT J.

The respondent was convicted of the crime of rape upon his stepdaughter, 16 years old.

1. It was not error to permit the prosecution to ask the complaining witness why she did not make complaint to her mother immediately after the commission of the crime. It is always competent for the prosecution to explain such a delay. In response, she testified that he threatened to kill her if she did.

2. It is insisted that the court did not correctly instruct the jury upon the subject of a reasonable doubt. The instruction was as follows: "The respondent comes before you presumed to be innocent of the offense charged in this information, and that presumption continues to surround him until removed by evidence that satisfies your minds beyond any reasonable doubt of his guilt of the offense charged; and by proof beyond a reasonable doubt I mean such proof as precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that of the respondent's guilt of the offense charged. It is proof to a moral certainty, as distinguished from an absolute certainty. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not beyond all imaginary doubt, but such proof as satisfies the judgment and conscience of the jury, as reasonable men applying their reason to the evidence before them, that the crime charged has been committed by the respondent; so satisfies them as to leave no other reasonable conclusion possible." The charge is very clear and explicit, and covers the entire ground.

3. It is contended that the court erred in not instructing the jury that they might convict the respondent of any offense included within the charge laid in the information, viz assault with intent to commit rape, or assault and battery. No such request was asked, and under the evidence the respondent was either guilty of the crime charged or not guilty of any crime. In criminal as well as in civil cases it is the duty of counsel to specifically call the attention of the court to points on which they desire the jury to be instructed. The instruction was entirely correct, so far as it concerned the crime alleged...