People v. Hayek

Decision Date24 July 1928
Docket NumberNo. 143.,143.
Citation220 N.W. 790,243 Mich. 546
PartiesPEOPLE v. HAYEK.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Circuit Court, Isabella County; Ray Hart, Judge.

Vincent Hayek was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench, except POTTER, J.F. H. Dusenbury and Virgil W. McClintic, both of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant.

Wilber M. Brucker, Atty. Gen., and James E. Ryan, Pros. Atty., of Mt. Pleasant, for the People.

CLARK, J.

Defendant on error contends that the judgment upon conviction of possessing intoxicating liquor should be reversed for many reasons, some of which merit discussion.

1. Defendant was arrested on March 8, 1928, waived examination, and was bound over for trial.

On March 12, at the opening of the March term of the circuit court, he was arraigned, and at request of his counsel the cause was continued for trial until April 3 following.

The committing magistrate with his return did not include the affidavit for search warrant, warrant issued thereon, and return thereof. To bring up such papers defendant, on or about March 30, filed and served motion for further return, noticed for April 3. Upon the convening of court on April 3, the motion was heard, the further return ordered and immediately made. Thereupon, and on April 3, defendant filed and served motion to suppress the evidence, which was noticed for hearing several days later. Defendant then sought to have the trial postponed to follow hearing of the motion to suppress as noticed, and was refused. The court announced that the motion to suppress would be heard on that day, April 3, gave defendant privilege of adducing testimony to support the motion, and adjourned the hearing until 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon of that day, at which time defendant's counsel stated that they were not prepared for such hearing and objected. The hearing was then had and the motion denied.

Examination having been waived it was not the duty of the magistrate to include in his return the search warrant and affidavit. It was upon counsel for defendant, if they so desired, to move for return thereof. People v. Vulje, 223 Mich. 656, 194 N. W. 582. They knew of these papers, having moved for the return of them. It was also upon them, if they wished to be heard upon a motion to suppress, to make and notice the same to be heard before trial, if there was sufficient time. There was here ample time. The motion to suppress was late, and the court did not err in refusing to postpone trial and in requiring early hearing on the motion.

2. Defendant contends that section 1, Circuit Court Rule 42, as amended, 233 Mich. 34, providing that the judge in his discretion may conduct voir dire examination of jurors, is invalid.

The circuit judge interrogated jurors fully and as requested by counsel, with one exception. Counsel suggested a question relative to prejudice against intoxicating liquor. The court asked a question somewhat different from that suggested, but the fact of difference was not called to his attention and no point them made in regard to it. At the end of questioning the following was asked by the court and answered by Mr. Ryan, the prosecutor, and Mr. Dusenbury of counsel for defendant:

‘The Court: Are there any other questions or any other challenges?

‘Mr. Dusenbury: Pass the jury.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 29 Abril 1935
    ... ... force and violence ... State ... v. Griffin, 129 S.C. 200, 124 S.E. 81, 35 A.L.R. 1227; ... Carlisle v. State, 114 So. 475; People v ... Winchester, 185 N.E. 580; Posell v. Herscovitz et ... al., 130 N.E. 69; Commonwealth v. Belenski, 176 ... N.E. 501; Robb v. Connolly, ... 590, 26 N. Y. Cr. R. 75; State v. Snealy, 107 P ... 389, 18 Wyo. 341; State v. Frost, 234 P. 1021, 134 ... Wash. 48; People v. Hayek, 220. N.W. 790, 243 Mich ... 546; State v. Boloff, 4 P.2d 326; People v ... Winchester, 185 N.E. 580, 352 Ill. 237 ... W. D ... ...
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 7 Enero 1935
    ...143 A.D. 590, 26 N.Y. Cr. R. 75; State v. Snealy, 107 P. 389, 18 Wyo. 341; State v. Frost, 234 P. 1021, 134 Wash, 48; People v. Hayek, 220 N.W. 790, 243 Mich. 546; State Boloff, 4 P.2d 326; People v. Winchester, 185 N.E. 580, 352 Ill. 237. W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for th......
  • People v. Lobb
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 24 Septiembre 1959
    ...to conduct the entire examination. See: Michigan Court Rule 37, par. 1; People v. Lahey, 256 Mich. 250, 239 N.W. 254; People v. Hayek, 243 Mich. 546, 220 N.W. 790; 47 Ill.Bar Journal 140, The only positive restriction in Rule 24-1 is that the jurors shall not be examined concerning matters ......
  • State v. Manley
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 27 Junio 1969
    ...People v. Cole, 8 Mich.App. 250, 154 N.W.2d 579 (1967); People v. Lahey, 256 Mich. 250, 239 N.W. 254, 256 (1931); People v. Hayek, 243 Mich. 546, 220 N.W. 790 (1928). and the facts and the relation of one to the other, the lecture ending in a question for form's sake. It means also a prohib......
  • 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