People v. Goldman
| Decision Date | 22 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 160.,160. |
| Citation | 192 N.W. 546,221 Mich. 646 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. GOLDMAN. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari to Recorder's Court of City of Detroit; Charles L. Bartlett, Judge.
Benjamin F. Goldman was convicted of reckless driving and placed on probation, and he brings certiorari. Writ dismissed.
Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ. Harold Goodman, of Detroit, for appellant.
Clarence E. Page, of Detroit (Clarence E. Wilcox, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.
Defendant was convicted on a charge of reckless driving of an automobile in the city of Detroit in violation of section 8 of part 2, chapter 35, of the Compiled Ordinances of that city, and placed on probation for one year. He reviews his conviction and the order placing him on probation by writ of certiorari.
1. It is claimed that there was not sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The proof offered by the prosecution established the fact that defendant drove his car into the back of one parked close to the curb near the entrance to Waterworks Park at the foot of Jefferson avenue. Defendant admitted the collision, but claimed it was unavoidable in his effort to prevent his car from striking a foot passenger, who was crossing the street immediately in front of the parked car. We have read the testimony with care, and feel constrained to hold that a question of fact was presented.
2. Counsel insists that the sentence imposed is void because the law providing for placing persons on probation does not apply to those convicted of a violation of a city ordinance. The act in question (No. 105, Public Acts 1913; 1 Comp. Laws 1915, § 2029 et seq.) is entitled:
‘An act to provide a uniform system of probation throughout the state of Michigan; the appointment of probation officers and to prescribe the powers, duties and compensation of such officers; to provide a penalty for the violation of his duties; and to repeal act number ninety-one of the Public Acts of nineteen hundred three, as amended.’
Section 1 reads as follows:
‘In all prosecutions for crimes or misdemeanors, except murder and treasons, where the defendant has been found guilty, upon verdict or plea, and where the court has power to sentence such defendant to fine or imprisonment, and where it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant is not likely again to engage in an offensive or criminal course of conduct, and that the public good does not require that the defendant shall suffer the penalty imposed by law, said court shall have the power to place the defendant on probation under the charge and supervision of a probation officer.’
The language of this section is subject to criticism because crimes, strictly speaking, include both felonies and misdemeanors. The only distinction between them in this state is that persons convicted of the former may be sentenced to the state prisons.
The question here presented hinges on whether the violation charged is a crime. The penalty provided therefor is a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment in the Detroit House of Correction for not exceeding 90 days, or both, in the discretion of the court. In the early history of the state, but little power was conferred on cities in the way of local self-government. The following language of Mr. Chief Justice Martin in People v. Jackson, 8 Mich. 110, indicates the nature of the ordinances then enacted:
‘The ordinances of the city are no more nor less than by-laws of a corporation; and it would be strange indeed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Detroit v. Recorder's Court Traffic and Ordinance Judge
...that violation of an ordinance does not constitute a crime. This subject was addressed by the Supreme Court in People v. Goldman, 221 Mich. 646, 192 N.W. 546 (1923), where, quoting from Hanrahan, supra, the court stated " 'Whenever a person does an act which is prohibited by law, which act ......
-
People v. Sarnoff
...a statute, upon conviction of the violation of such an ordinance the court has power to place the defendant on probation. People v. Goldman, 221 Mich. 646, 192 N.W. 546. In People v. Robinson, 253 Mich. 507, 235 N.W. 236, 237, decided February 27, 1931, the court held that ‘probation is a s......
-
City of Ann Arbor v. Riksen
...of an ordinance is ‘in one sense a crime.’ City of Detroit v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 233 Mich. 356, 206 N.W. 582. See, People v. Goldman, 221 Mich. 646, 192 N.W. 546 (complaint charged a crime as well as violation of the ordinance); People v. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 611, 42 N.W. 1124,4 L.R.A. 751 ......
-
Delta Cnty. v. City of Gladstone
...Mich. 193, 109 N.W. 411, and cases cited), it has been later recognized that such proceedings are in a sense criminal. People v. Goldman, 221 Mich. 646, 192 N.W. 546;City of Detroit v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 233 Mich. 356, 206 N.W. 582; People v. Riksen, 284 Mich. 284, 279 N.W. 513. However, ......