People v. Faczewski

• Decision Date: 04 June 1928
• Docket Number: No. 169.,169.
• Citation: 242 Mich. 523,219 N.W. 631
• Parties: PEOPLE v. FACZEWSKI.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

242 Mich. 523

219 N.W. 631

PEOPLE

v.FACZEWSKI.

No. 169.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 4, 1928.

Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Adolph F. Marschner, Judge.

Adam Faczewski was convicted of statutory rape, and he brings error. Reversed and new trial ordered.

Argued before the Entire Bench except POTTER, J.Raymond M. Shock, of Birmingham (Frederick E. McCain, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.

Wilber M. Brucker, Atty. Gen., and Robert M. Toms, Pros. Atty., and Lloyd A. Loomis, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Detroit, for the People.

NORTH, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of statutory rape. The only question about which there was a conflict of testimony was the age of the prosecutrix. After deliberating several hours, the jurors were called into the courtroom by the trial judge, and it is claimed by the defendant they were asked in the absence of the court stenographer why they could not agree and were instructed to find a verdict or some of them would be dismissed from the panel. The defendant made a motion for a new trial assigning the above circumstance in paragraph 3 of his motion as one of the reasons why the same should be granted. The defendant's attorney filed his own affidavit in support of this motion, which affidavit in part is as follows:

‘Deponent further says that at two different times the jury stated they could not agree and would not agree on a point of fact, viz., the age of the complaining witness. That when the jury came before the court the second time, they were instructed to find a verdict or some of them would be dismissed from the panel.’

‘Deponent further says that the verdict rendered was unfair and that the court erred in not declaring a mistrial when the only fact at issue in the case was not fairly decided by the jury.’

The motion for a new trial was denied, and in his opinion filed the circuit judge stated:

‘The court did not in effect charge the jury as alleged in paragraph 3 of the defendant's motion. * * * After considerable deliberation in their jury room the jury were called in by the court to ascertain whether or not it was possible for them to agree. The forelady of the jury informed the court that they were discussing in their jury deliberations the question of punishment. The jury was specifically instructed again that the matter of punishment was not a question for them to determine, etc.’

The record in this case is a practical illustration of the serious consequences which may result from the failure of a trial court to follow the statutory provision for conducting jury trials in courts of record.

‘Hereafter in all jury trials in courts of record, in charging or instrucing the juries, the court shall instruct them...