People v. De Haven, No. 78.

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtSHARPE
Citation32 N.W.2d 468,321 Mich. 327
Decision Date18 May 1948
Docket NumberNo. 78.
PartiesPEOPLE v. DE HAVEN.

321 Mich. 327
32 N.W.2d 468

PEOPLE
v.
DE HAVEN.

No. 78.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 18, 1948.


[32 N.W.2d 469]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Allegan County; Fred T. Miles, judge.

Henry De Haven was convicted of rape upon a 13-year-old female, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Before the Entire Bench.

Leo W. Hoffman, of Allegan, Michigan, for respondent-appellant.


Eugene F. Black, Atty. Gen., and Chester A. Ray, Pros. Atty., of Allegan, for the People.

SHARPE, Justice

The defendant, Henry DeHaven, was tried and convicted of having committed the crime of rape upon Marilyn Kahre his 13 year old stepdaughter.

Defendant married Ethel DeHaven, mother of the complaining witness, in December 1941. At that time Marilyn was living with her grandparents in Indiana. Shortly after his marriage, defendant, his wife and Marilyn moved to Indiana where they lived until November 1945 when they moved to a farm in Allegan county, Michigan. At the trial, the complaining witness testified that she had sexual relations with defendant in Indiana and from four to ten times while they lived on the farm in Allegan county. She testified that on the afternoon of December 1, 1946, she and defendant climbed a ladder to an open room under the roof of the barn, remained there about 15 or 20 minutes and had sexual intercourse.

The cause was submitted to a jury who returned a verdict of guilty. Defendant made a motion for a new trial and among the reasons given are the following:

‘Because the juror, William Haverdink, failed to disclose when examined by the Court that a member of his family had been sentenced to life imprisonment for a similar offense.

‘Because the juror, John Bouws, failed to disclose in response to the question by the Court that a member of his family had been sentenced for life for a similar offense.’

The trial court denied the motion for a new trial and defendant appeals alleging as reasons therefore the errors as claimed in the motion for a new trial.

When the cause came on for trial, the court read the information to the jury and explained the meaning of the crime of statutory rape. He then questioned the jurors as a group as to whether any of them had any experience with any criminal case and as to whether any of their relatives had been involved in a similar case or any case involving the crime of rape. All 12 jurors answered in the negative. One of the jurors in the jury box at that time was John Bouws. A juror was excused and a juror by the name of William Haverdink was sworn and took his place. The court then asked the following questions and received the following answers:

‘The Court: Mr. Haverdink, you heard my questions?

[32 N.W.2d 470]

‘Mr. Haverdink: I did.

‘The Court: And you know anything about the case?

‘Mr. Haverdink: I do not.

‘The Court: Know any of the parties?

‘Mr. Haverdink: No.

‘The Court: Have any business with any of the attorneys?

‘Mr. Haverdink: No. I didn't.

‘The Court: Do you know of anything that might interfere with your fair and impartial trial of this kind of case?

‘Mr. Haverdink: I don't.

‘The Court: There is nothing about anything that has happened to any members of your family that would make you feel different about this case than others?

‘Mr. Haverdink: No. ‘The Court: You feel in this case you could sit in this case fairly and impartial?

‘Mr. Haverdink: I can.

‘The Court: There is no other case you heard about or know about would influence your verdict in any way?

‘Mr. Haverdink: No.

‘The Court: Do you have a daughter, do you?

‘Mr. Haverdink: I have daughters, but they are all married.

‘The Court: Well, yuou think that would make any difference in this case?

‘Mr. Haverdink: It wouldn't.

‘The Court: Do you know any of these parties I have named here as witnesses?

‘Mr. Haverdink: No, I don't.

‘The Court: Have you any challenge now?

‘Mr. Ray: No.’ $The jury, including the jurors Haverdink and Bouws, was then sworn and the trial proceeded. It appears tht the juror Haverdink is a cousin and the juror Bouws is a brother-in-law to a man named William Haverdink who was sentenced for statutory rape by the circuit court of Ottawa county in 1939. The record in that case discloses that William Haverdink committed rape upon his 13 year old daughter as well as four other daughters.

The trial court in denying the motion for a new trial stated in regard to the failure of juror William Haverdink to disclose that a member of his family had been sentenced to life imprisonment for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 practice notes
  • State v. Singletary
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • May 23, 1979
    ...(juror in drunk driving trial had a best friend who was killed by a drunk driver a few days before); People v. DeHaven, 321 Mich. 327, 32 N.W.2d 468 (Sup.Ct.1948) (jurors in statutory rape trial had relatives who had been convicted of same offense); Durham v. State, 182 Tenn. 577, 188 S.W.2......
  • People v. Kabongo, Docket No. 159346
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • May 20, 2021
    ...Mich. at 230, 103 N.W.2d 435.117 Miller , 482 Mich. at 552, 759 N.W.2d 850.118 Id. at 561, 759 N.W.2d 850.119 Id.120 People v. DeHaven , 321 Mich. 327, 32 N.W.2d 468 (1948).121 Id. at 334, 32 N.W.2d 468.122 Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).123 Id. at 332, 32 N.W.2d 468 (quotation......
  • People v. Johnson, Docket No. 212482.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • June 6, 2001
    ...that jurors have a duty to reveal relevant information, even though the information is personal or embarrassing. People v. De-Haven, 321 Mich. 327, 334, 32 N.W.2d 468 (1948). Nevertheless, Juror 457 truthfully answered the trial court's question. That defense counsel did not ask more specif......
  • People v. Miller, Docket No. 135989.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 30, 2008
    ...erred in reversing the defendant's conviction and remanding this case to the circuit court for a new trial pursuant to People v. DeHaven, 321 Mich. 327, 32 N.W.2d 468 (1948); (2) whether DeHaven was wrongly decided or has been superseded by MCL 600.1354(1); (3) whether a criminal defendant ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
  • State v. Singletary
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • May 23, 1979
    ...(juror in drunk driving trial had a best friend who was killed by a drunk driver a few days before); People v. DeHaven, 321 Mich. 327, 32 N.W.2d 468 (Sup.Ct.1948) (jurors in statutory rape trial had relatives who had been convicted of same offense); Durham v. State, 182 Tenn. 577, 188 S.W.2......
  • People v. Kabongo, Docket No. 159346
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • May 20, 2021
    ...Mich. at 230, 103 N.W.2d 435.117 Miller , 482 Mich. at 552, 759 N.W.2d 850.118 Id. at 561, 759 N.W.2d 850.119 Id.120 People v. DeHaven , 321 Mich. 327, 32 N.W.2d 468 (1948).121 Id. at 334, 32 N.W.2d 468.122 Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).123 Id. at 332, 32 N.W.2d 468 (quotation......
  • People v. Johnson, Docket No. 212482.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • June 6, 2001
    ...that jurors have a duty to reveal relevant information, even though the information is personal or embarrassing. People v. De-Haven, 321 Mich. 327, 334, 32 N.W.2d 468 (1948). Nevertheless, Juror 457 truthfully answered the trial court's question. That defense counsel did not ask more specif......
  • People v. Miller, Docket No. 135989.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 30, 2008
    ...erred in reversing the defendant's conviction and remanding this case to the circuit court for a new trial pursuant to People v. DeHaven, 321 Mich. 327, 32 N.W.2d 468 (1948); (2) whether DeHaven was wrongly decided or has been superseded by MCL 600.1354(1); (3) whether a criminal defendant ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT