People v. Frey

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HOOKER, J.
• Citation: People v. Frey, 112 Mich. 251, 70 N.W. 548 (Mich. 1897)
• Decision Date: 29 March 1897
• Parties: PEOPLE v. FREY.

70 N.W. 548

112 Mich. 251

PEOPLE v. FREY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 29, 1897

Exceptions from circuit court, Calhoun county; Clement Smith, Judge.

Orin J Frey was convicted of threatening to accuse another of crime with intent to extort money, and excepts. Affirmed.

Hulbert & Mechem, for respondent.

A. W Lockton, Pros. Atty., and O. S. Clark, for the People.

HOOKER J.

The respondent was convicted of the offense of maliciously threatening to accuse another of crime, with intent to extort money.

It is first urged by counsel for the appellant that the information and the proof "fell short of charging or proving a threat to prefer charges in some court, or set in motion the criminal machinery of the state." The language used in the information was, "did verbally, unlawfully, and maliciously threaten to accuse," etc., "of a crime, to wit, the crime of sodomy and bestiality," etc. This follows the language of the statute, and, under many decisions, that is all that was necessary. There are many authorities that hold that the term "accuse" means, in the law, "to charge with an offense judicially, or by a public process." This is Webster's definition, and that given in the text of the American & English Encyclopedia of Law (2d Ed. p. 481). If this is the correct legal definition of the term, it must be given that meaning in the statute. See How. Ann. St. � 2. Indeed, counsel for the defendant must so contend in order to sustain his point "that proof of a threat to accuse judicially is necessary to establish the offense." If he is correct in this, it must be for the reason that the word has this legal meaning, and it would seem to us that the word might be given the same meaning in the information as in the statute. So, although defendant's counsel may be right about this, the judge was justified in allowing the case to go to the jury, as there was testimony tending to show a threat to prosecute the complainant for the crime.

Complaint is made that the court permitted the jury to find a verdict upon a mere threat to accuse publicly, but we think not. That does not appear to have been a mooted question. There are no requests to charge shown, upon the subject, and in fact the court told the jury that it was for them "to say whether he was threatened with the criminal action, or not, of sodomy or bestiality." The court's attention was not called to any omission by an exception.

We think...