People v. Gregory
| Decision Date | 20 October 1874 |
| Citation | 30 Mich. 371 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | The People v. William H. Gregory |
Heard October 7, 1874
Exceptions from Lapeer Circuit.
Conviction quashed, and the defendant discharged.
George P. Voorheis and Isaac Marston, Attorney General, for the People.
C. P Thomas and Gaskill & Geer, for defendant.
The defendant was convicted before a justice for an assault and battery, and he appealed to the circuit court, where he was again convicted.
The case was thereupon brought to this court on exceptions, pursuant to the statute.
It appears that defendant was tried in both courts on a plea of not guilty, which the justice entered for him on his refusal to plead, and that both courts declined to permit him to withdraw such plea and set up a former conviction and judgment for the same offense. He now objects to the proceedings, that the complaint before the justice was so defective that it afforded no valid basis for the other steps which were taken. In refusing to plead, we think he did not admit any authority in the court, or waive any right to object to the jurisdictional sufficiency of the complaint; and we also think that the act of the justice in entering a plea for him was not one which could aid an invalid complaint, or preclude defendant from insisting upon its invalidity. The point is then open.
The defendant objects against the complaint, that it did not appear from it that the offense was committed within the time limited by law for commencing prosecution for it, or committed within the county to which the justice belonged; and an inspection of the record shows that it was defective in the particulars mentioned. The complaint contained no mention of the year, in laying the offense, and named no county, either in the margin or elsewhere, except the county of "Michigan." As there is no such county as "Michigan," this statement was no better than a blank. Were these defects fatal? We think they were. It ought to have appeared affirmatively that the act was not done so early as to be barred by the statute of limitations; as, otherwise, it could not appear that the case was subject to prosecution at all.
The other objection was well taken. The authority of a justice to hold trials in criminal cases is strictly defined and limited by the statute, and the proceedings should appear to be within, and in substantial accordance with, the provisions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Steensland
...remove the bar of the statute, it is incumbent upon the state to plead and prove the exception. (People v. Miller, 12 Cal. 291; People v. Gregory, 30 Mich. 371; Vaughn Congdon, 56 Vt. 111, 48 Am. Rep. 758; State v. Robinson, 29 N.H. 274; McLane v. State, 4 Ga. 335; State v. Ball, 30 W.Va. 3......
-
People v. Powell
...be stated in clear, apt, and concise terms by the indictment. People v. Higgins, 15 Ill. 110;Wiedemann v. People, 92 Ill. 314;People v. Gregory, 30 Mich. 371; Bishop's New Crim. Proc. (2d Ed.) § 360. We have frequently held that, where the venue is not proven as charged in the indictment, t......
-
Grayson v. State
...statement of the year is fatal, when it is not alleged that the offense was committed within the period of limitation. 14 Ky. L. Rep. 400; 30 Mich. 371. The burden is upon the State to prove the offense was committed within twelve months next before the finding of the indictment. 57 Ark. 49......
-
State v. Vreeland
...extends. 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 374, p. 544. And see Ex parte Perse, 220 Mo.App. 406, 286 S.W. 733 (Ct.App.1926); People v. Gregory, 30 Mich. 371 (Sup.Ct.1874); Commonwealth ex rel. Taylor v. Clinton, 38 Pa.Super. 573 (Super.Ct.1909) ; Commonwealth v. Weldon, 26 Northam.Law Rep. 383 (Cty.......