People v. Harrison
| Decision Date | 02 December 1892 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HARRISON. |
Error to circuit court, Bay county; GEORGE P. COBB, Judge.
Claud Harrison was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Affirmed.
James Van Kleeck, for appellant.
A A. Ellis, Atty. Gen., and Curtis E. Pierce Pros. Atty., for the People.
The respondent was convicted upon an information charging him with the larceny of $31, the property of one Louis Johnson during the summer of 1891. The respondent complains that the circuit judge erred in deciding that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in returning a verdict of guilty. The record does not disclose that he did so, except to hold that there was some evidence to go to the jury in relation to the guilt of the respondent, and this evidence was submitted to them in a fair and impartial manner by the circuit judge, with an instruction that the evidence must convince them beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the respondent, or they must acquit him. As there was evidence of that character, it was clearly a question for the jury, and the circuit judge was right in submitting it to them.
The respondent also claims error on the part of the circuit judge in refusing to allow the respondent's counsel, on cross-examination, to show that Josie Lacomb, who was a witness on behalf of the people, was a person of bad moral character. The record discloses that she admitted that though not married to him, she had been living and cohabiting with the respondent for some time, claiming to be his wife, and that she was sustaining that relation to him at the time she testified that he committed the offense for which he was convicted. This would indicate that the jury must have had something upon which to rest an opinion in relation to her moral character, without the aid of any other testimony touching upon the question of her chastity, but, in addition to this, the court permitted her to be asked by respondent's counsel, on cross-examination, if she had ever been married; if she had ever had a child; if she did not have a child at her mother's house; and if some years ago, or some time ago, she had not been in the family way in her mother's house. To each and all of these questions she answered, "No." The respondent's counsel then asked her the question, "Have you been in the habit of going around with men?" and, upon insisting that he wished to show that she was a woman of bad moral character, the circuit judge responded, "I think that has gone far enough now," and refused to permit any further questions in that line. While it was the duty of the circuit judge, upon the cross-examination of the witness, to permit such reasonable interrogation upon the subject as would fairly disclose to the jury her true character, and thus enable them to judge of the weight which should be given to her testimony, yet we think that in this case he did not abuse his discretion in that particular. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial