People v. Henshaw
| Decision Date | 06 February 1884 |
| Citation | 18 N.W. 360,52 Mich. 564 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HENSHAW. |
Where there is some evidence tending to prove the crime charged and it is fairly submitted to the jury, their verdict cannot be disturbed.
In cases other than homicide and where the witness indorsed on the information is not claimed to be able to testify as to the corpus delicti, it is only necessary to have such witness in court ready to be examined; he need not necessarily be called on to testify, Wellar v. People, 30 Mich. 23 distinguished.
Exceptions from recorder's court of Detroit.
J.J. Van Riper, for plaintiff.
Henry M. Cheever, for defendant.
The respondent was charged with larceny from the person of Milton H. Butler, September 1, 1881. He was brought to trial in October, 1883, in the recorder's court of the city of Detroit, which resulted in a conviction. The case comes here on exceptions before judgment. That the crime of larceny from the person was committed was not questioned, but whether the prisoner was the person who committed it was disputed. Evidence was introduced tending to prove the identity of the prisoner as the one who committed the offense, and the question as to whether he was the guilty party was fairly submitted by the court to the jury; and so long as there was evidence having a tendency to prove the fact, we cannot disturb the conclusion at which they have arrived.
A person by the name of James McGuire, who was at the time of the larceny on the police force, and who helped to arrest the parties who robbed Butler, was present in court at the time of trial. His name was indorsed on the information as one of the witnesses for the people. He was not present at the robbery, but assisted in making the arrest at the foot of Woodward avenue. The prosecution was about to rest the case, when the counsel for respondent requested the court to direct the prosecuting attorney to call James McGuire as a witness, which he declined to do, and the respondent's counsel excepted. And this is claimed to be error; and in support of the proposition the case of Wellar v. People, 30 Mich. 23, is cited. That case is distinguishable from the present in two important particulars,--First, it was a case of homicide; and, second the witnesses referred to were those who could give testimony going to the proof of the corpus delicti. And the court said "The fact that the name of a witness is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lummis, 167.
...to do any more than have the witness in court ready to be examined.’ Wellar v. People, 30 Mich. 16, 22. See, also, People v. Henshaw, 52 Mich. 564, 18 N. W. 360. A defendant has the right to rely on the fact that such a witness will be present. If his counsel announces that he desires to ex......
-
People v. Pope
... ... stated that the evidence of these witnesses was cumulative ... They were, however, produced, and tendered to the defense for ... cross-examination. None of these were eyewitnesses to the ... transaction. The prosecution had done all that the law ... required. People v. Henshaw, 52 Mich. 564, 18 N.W ... 360; Wellar v. People, 30 Mich. 23 ... 6. One ... Mrs. Montgomery, a witness for the prosecution, became ill ... before the close of the cross-examination, fainted, and was ... carried from the court room. The defense reserved the right ... to further ... ...
- People v. Moore