People v. Hallman, 86.

• Decision Date: 02 December 1941
• Docket Number: No. 86.,86.
• Citation: 299 Mich. 657,1 N.W.2d 28
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HALLMAN.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

299 Mich. 657

1 N.W.2d 28

PEOPLE

v.HALLMAN.

No. 86.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 2, 1941.

William Hallman was convicted to statutory rape, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit; Christopher E. Stein, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Frank G. Schemanske, of Detroit, for defendant and appellant.

Herbert J. Rushton, Atty. Gen., and Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., William E. Dowling, Pros. Atty., Ralph E. Helper, Asst. Pros. Atty., and Richard E. Lamb, Asst. Pros. Atty., all of Detroit, for the People.

SHARPE, Chief Justice.

Defendant was tried, convicted and sentenced for the crime of statutory rape. The cause was tried without the aid of a jury and, after the conclusion of the testimony, the court made the following statement on the record: ‘I will take the matter under advisement. I don't want to act hastily in the matter, because I realize it is a serious matter, and a child involved here. She has not been a very good girl, but what can you expect of a child 9 or 10 years of age? They are easily led. The mother was not home, and the child could be very easily led. That is where the mother's influence was not felt. If the mother had been there and looking after the child, it may not have happened. However, I have got to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt before I can find him guilty. I will hold it open for a few days-until a week from today. I will take it under advisement. There is no objection to the court doing this?’

On the adjourned date, the court made the following statement and finding: ‘The court has heard the testimony several days ago, and counsel consented that the court take the matter under advisement. After going over the testimony and giving it my earnest consideration, I feel satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the respondent's guilt. I will find him guilty of the charge and defer sentence a week from today and refer his case to the Probation Department, and I will remand him to the custody of the sheriff without bond.’

Subsequently, defendant filed a motion for new trial in which it was alleged that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence; and that the trial court had expressed a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt. At a later date, defendant filed an amended motion for new trial in which it was alleged that additional evidence had been secured. Affidavits of two brothers of defendant that on December 24, 1938, defendant was not at the place where the crime was alleged to have been committed were attached to the motion. The trial court denied both motions.

Defendant appeals and contends that the trial court erred in finding the defendant guilty after expressing a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt at the conclusion of the testimony. We are not in accord with this theory. The statement made by the trial court does not support such a claim. At most it was an adjournment of the cause in order to give the court time to analyze the testimony.

It is next urged that the trial court was in error in finding the defendant guilty by reason of the State's failure to produce all the res gestae material witnesses of the alleged crime. Defendant bases this contention on 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 17254 (Stat.Ann. 28.980), which provides: ‘All informations shall be filed during term in the court having jurisdiction of the offense specified therein, after the proper return is filed by the examining magistrate by the prosecuting attorney of the county as informant; he shall subscribe his name thereto, and indorse thereon the names of the witnesses known to him at the time of filing the same. Names of other witnesses...