People v. Gould

• Decision Date: 11 May 1888
• Citation: 70 Mich. 240,38 N.W. 232
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. GOULD.

38 N.W. 232

70 Mich. 240

PEOPLE v. GOULD.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 11, 1888

Error to circuit court, Shiawassee county; WILLIAM NEWTON, Judge.

S F. Smith, Pros. Atty., for the State.

Turner & Turner, for respondent.

LONG J.

The respondent in this cause was convicted, in the circuit court for the county of Shiawassee, for seducing and debauching one Kate Morrow, and brings the case here on writ of error. The action was brought under section 9283, How. St., which provides: "If any man shall seduce and debauch any unmarried woman, he shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not more than five years," etc. The information charges "that on the 10th day of October, 1886, at the township of Shiawassee in the county of Shiawassee, [said William Gould] did seduce and debauch one Kate Morrow; she, the said Kate Morrow, being then and there an unmarried woman," etc. The cause was tried before a jury. It appeared on the trial of the case that on April 19, 1887, said Kate Morrow made complaint under section 9283, How. St., before GEORGE A. PARKER, a justice of the peace of the township of Shiawassee, in said county, charging the respondent with seducing and debauching her. A warrant was issued on said complaint; the respondent was arrested, and brought before said justice; and the examination set down for April 27, 1887. On said day the case was called, the respondent being present, and a recess taken to 1 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day. During such recess the respondent sought and obtained an interview with Kate and her mother, and finally went to their home, where Kate and respondent were married, during such recess, by Mr. Caruthers, a justice of the peace of said township. On the afternoon of the same day, about 7 o'clock, the respondent took the east-bound train for Port Huron, and deserted and abandoned his wife, and did not live or cohabit with her after said marriage, nor did he return to said county of Shiawassee till brought there under arrest as a disorderly person, under section 1985, How. St. No further proceedings were had under the complaint made by Kate Morrow on April 19, 1887; but subsequently, and in September, 1887, Sarah J. Morrow, the mother of Kate, made complaint against respondent, before said Justice PARKER, and respondent was held to trial in the circuit court for said county, and the information upon which the respondent was convicted in this cause was filed, under said last-mentioned complaint, on December 21, 1887. It further appeared upon the trial, and before any testimony was offered, that counsel for the respondent made the following request: " By Mr. Turner, Respondent's Counsel. Before proceeding to trial, I ask leave to file, not as evidence, but simply as the expression of the wish, the affidavit of the wife of the respondent, the woman he is charged with seducing, to the effect that she is not instrumental in this prosecution, and that she does not desire it to proceed. By the Court. You can file it." Testimony was then given showing that Kate was an unmarried woman on the 10th day of October, 1886, the date on which the offense was alleged to have been committed, and that on the 22d day of July, 1887, she gave birth to a child, and that she never was married till she was married to respondent on April 27, 1887, and that the respondent had been arrested under a complaint made by Kate for seducing and debauching her before said marriage, and was still held under arrest for said offense at the time of the marriage. The only testimony given on the trial to prove the corpus delicti was the confession of the respondent made to Sarah J. Morrow, the mother of Kate, and to others, just before and after his arraignment on the complaint made by Kate, in which respondent stated "that the child was his, and that he had promised to marry Kate, and do what was right." It also appeared that, on his arraignment before the justice under said complaint, he pleaded not guilty, but subsequently made a request of the justice to be allowed to withdraw his plea of not guilty, and to plead guilty thereto. At the close of the testimony, counsel for respondent requested the court to charge the jury: (1) "The validity of the marriage between the respondent and said Kate Morrow cannot be attacked by the prosecution in this case." (2) "That the proof introduced on the part of the prosecution in this case, as to the statements made by respondent as to his being guilty of the offense charged, are competent for what they are worth, but do not constitute a prima facie case for the people." (3) "If the jury find, from the evidence in this case, that, at the time the respondent was arrested the first time upon the charge for seduction, and that he was at that time arraigned before the justice, and pleaded not guilty, and, upon his marrying the girl (Kate) he was charged with seducing, he was discharged by said justice, and said prosecution was at that time ended, the people in this case have no standing in court in this prosecution against defendant, as the first one, upon which the respondent was discharged, is a complete bar to this prosecution, if they further find that both were brought for the same offense." (4) "If the jury find, from the evidence in this case, a valid marriage between respondent and Kate Morrow anterior to this prosecution, the respondent should be discharged." (5) "That, from the evidence in this case, the verdict of the jury must be not guilty." The court refused to give defendant's requests in charge to the jury except the first, and it is to the refusal of the court to give the remainder of said requests...