People v. Hossler
| Decision Date | 05 January 1904 |
| Citation | 97 N.W. 754,135 Mich. 384 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HOSSLER. |
Exceptions from Circuit Court, Bay County; Theodore F. Shepard, Judge.
George Hossler was convicted of manslaughter, and he brings exceptions. Affirmed.
Lewis P. Coumans and Edward E. Anneke, Pros. Atty., for the people.
Lee E Joslyn and M. D. Snow, for respondent.
The defendant is before us upon exceptions before sentence having been convicted of the offense of manslaughter. The defendant and deceased, who were neighbors, met at the house of one Hoder, and partook freely of the contents of a keg of beer procured for the occasion. An argument regarding the strength of the respective navies of the United States and Great Britain culminated in a fight, but the parties were separated, and the defendant was induced to go home; the deceased being meantime restrained by the bystanders. Soon after the defendant left, the deceased went to defendant's farm, and found the defendant putting out his horses. Another fight ensued, and deceased received a mortal injury; his skull being fractured near the ear. There were contusions upon the back of his head and upon his face, and his condition indicated that he was used very roughly, while defendant was practically uninjured. The defendant, at the suggestion of his wife, who witnessed the affray, gave immediate information to friends of the deceased, who removed Mr. Payne, and he died from his injury the next day.
Before the trial was commenced, the defendant's counsel asked that the prosecution be required to indorse the name of the defendant's wife upon the information as a witness for the people; she being the only third person present at the fight at the barn. Subsequently during the trial the application was renewed; it being stated by counsel that defendant expressly waived his right to object to the calling of his wife as a witness against him. The court denied the request. There was no error in this. The case of People v. Wolcott, 51 Mich. 618, 17 N.W. 78, is decisive of the question. In that case the name of respondent's wife was indorsed on the information, but the prosecuting attorney declined to call her, and the court refused to compel him to do so. In the opinion, Mr. Justice Cooley said: 'The relationship of the witness to the accused was sufficient reason for execusing her.' We are of the opinion that this language was intended to mean that the relationship was such as to justify the prosecutor in declining to call the witness on behalf of the people. The record in that case shows that the trial court 'refused to require that the witness be called for the people,' and, if that is the rule notwithstanding the indorsement of the wife's name there is quite as much reason for applying it to a case where the defendant has not been led to expect that the prosecution intended to make his wife their witness.
Mary Hoder, a child of 10 years of age, was present at the preliminary quarrel at her father's house. She was called as a witness for the prosecution, and, in answer to questions put by counsel for the people, stated that she did not know what it was to be sworn or to take an oath. Thereupon counsel for defendant were told that they might examine her, and stated that they did not care to ask any questions. Later in the proceedings, counsel for defendant said that they would like to ask Mary Hoder some questions. The court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Poe
...that the trial court erred in refusing to recall a witness. Such matters are within the discretion of the trial court. People v. Hossler (1904), 135 Mich. 384, 97 N.W. 754. We find no abuse of discretion At the conclusion of the prosecution's case, the trial court granted the prosecution's ......
-
People v. Raider
...the right to cross-examine her, People v. Wolcott, 51 Mich. 613, 17 N. W. 78; nor need she be indorsed as a witness, People v. Hossler, 135 Mich. 384, 97 N. W. 754; one charged as an accessory need not be called by the people, People v. McCullough, 81 Mich. 25, 45 N. W. 515;People v. Resh, ......
-
People v. Todaro
...immediately after the assault, ‘Now, see what you have done,’ was properly received as part of the res gestae.' In People v. Hossler, 135 Mich. 384, 97 N. W. 754, 756, defendant was convicted of manslaughter. The parties had been drinking, got into an argument which resulted in a fight in w......
-
People v. Fedderson, 74
...witness, whom the defense counsel stated he was unable to locate, could not be subjected to repeated cross-examination. People v. Hossler, 135 Mich. 384, 97 N.W. 754. The defendant alleges that the court erred in denying a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. In People v. In......