People v. Gardner
Citation | 29 N.W. 19,62 Mich. 307 |
Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Decision Date | 01 July 1886 |
Parties | PEOPLE v. GARDNER. |
The Attorney General, for the People.
Van Zile & Fox and Clement Smith, for respondent.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of embezzlement. A jury having been impaneled and sworn, a witness was called on behalf of the people, and thereupon counsel for the prisoner objected to the introduction of any testimony on the ground that the information filed in the cause was sworn to before the law partner of the prosecuting attorney. The court, to obviate any objection, directed the prosecuting attorney to verify the information before the clerk of the court, which was done. The court then directed the prisoner to be again arraigned upon the same information. This was objected to by respondent's counsel because he had once been in jeopardy for the same offense. The prisoner was ordered by the court to stand up, and was arraigned, but refused to plead, and thereupon the court directed the plea of not guilty to be entered. The court then inquired of counsel for respondent if he had any objections to the jury then in the box. The counsel for respondent replied that this was a new issue that the information should have been sworn to before the clerk, and the defendant rearraigned, and another plea entered; that this was not a jury in this case. The following colloquy then ensued; Whereupon the said court discharged the said jury from the case, and directed the clerk of said court to put all the jury-slips back again in the jury-box. And thereupon the said court ordered and directed the said clerk of said court to call another jury. And the same having been called, and the counsel for the people having announced that they were content with the said second jury so called, the court said: The jury were thereupon sworn, and the respondent's counsel thereupon renewed his motion to discharge the prisoner for the reason that the prisoner had already been in jeopardy, and he objected to respondent being again put upon trial for the same offense which was overruled, and the trial proceeded, and resulted in conviction.
The objection made by the respondent to the information for the reason that it was verified before the law partner of the prosecuting attorney was without merit at that stage of the proceeding, and should have been overruled. Lambert v People, 29 Mich. 70. This is conceded by the counsel for respondent; and he says: It...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Anglin
...judge, People v. Taylor (1898), 117 Mich. 583, 76 N.W. 158; People v. Tillard (1947), 318 Mich. 619, 29 N.W.2d 111; People v. Gardner (1886), 62 Mich. 307, 29 N.W. 19. From these cases, certain principles are clear. A defendant cannot be in jeopardy until a jury is impaneled and sworn. Peop......
-
Ex parte Earle, 221.
...Counsel for petitioner relies on People v. Jones, 48 Mich, 554, 12 N.W.2d 848;People v. Harding, 53 Mich. 481, 19 N.W. 155;People v. Gardner, 62 Mich. 307, 29 N.W. 19;People v. Taylor, 117 Mich. 583, 76 N.W. 158;In re Ascher, 130 Mich. 540, 90 N.W. 418,57 L.R.A. 806;People v. Parker, 145 Mi......
-
People v. Johnson
...on the principal charge. People v. Stratton, supra. Jeopardy attached when the jury was initially impaneled and sworn. People v. Gardner, 62 Mich. 307, 29 N.W. 19 (1886), People v. Williams, 85 Mich.App. 258, 271 [94 MICHAPP 556] N.W.2d 191 (1978). For the trial court to dismiss the jury on......
-
Carroll v. State
...Peiffer v. Com., 15 Pa. 468, 53 Am. Dec. 605; State v. Davis, 80 N. C. 384; People v. White, 68 Mich. 648, 37 N. W. 34; People v. Gardner, 62 Mich. 307, 29 N. W. 19; Com. v. Sholes, 13 Allen (Mass.) 554; State v. Wamire, 16 Ind. 357; McCorkle v. Com., 14 Ind. 39; Hughes v. State, 35 Ala. 35......