People v. Hunley
| Decision Date | 04 March 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 84.,84. |
| Citation | 313 Mich. 688,21 N.W.2d 923 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HUNLEY. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Ingham County; Leland W. Carr, judge.
Ada Hunley was convicted of manslaughter, ans she appeals.
Affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench, except CARR, J.
Benjamin F. Watson, of Lansing (John Brattin, of Lansing, of counsel), for defendant and appellant.
John R. Dethmers, Atty. Gen., and Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., and Victor C. Anderson, Pros. Atty., both of Lansing, and Daniel J. O'Hara, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Ada Hunley, defendant, was convicted of manslaughter. The crime occurred late in the evening of August 13, 1943, in White Oak Township, Ingham County, Michigan. She was 45 and had a fifth grade education. She had six children by a previous marriage and four more by Silas Hunley whom she married in 1930. He was younger than defendant. In 1943 the family came from Kentucky to Michigan to work in the onion fields. Four young men not yet of age and a married couple also came from Kentucky and worked in the vicinity of defendant's home. The Hunleys led a dreary existence and lived on a low economic plane. Defendant worked hard, ran the home, looked after the children, worked in the onion fields and seemed to be a law-abiding citizen. For recreation Silas at times went with some of the young Kentucky lads to Stockbridge, a nearby village, where they did some drinking. The testimony would indicate that Silas would show the effects of the intoxicants though as a rule not in any marked degree. However, it caused altercations between himself and defendant. She also refused his sexual demands of an unusual nature. At one time she tried to have him arrested. Numerous quarrels arose. She claims he had attacked her with an ax and other instruments. She particularly objected to his using the car when intoxicated. There is ample testimony to show that defendant had been badly mistreated by her husband.
On August 13, 1943, he went ot Stockbridge with some of the young men. He returned late in the evening. The car first passed the home, then was driven into the yard, whereupon she demanded that her husband get out of the car. When she took a shotgun and shot it in the air, he started to drive the car back to the road. As this had not the desired effect, she thereupon shot one of the tires of the car. He then got out of the car, grappled with her, and in the ensuing struggle she claimed that he took the gun from her with one hand and held her down with the other hand, whereupon in some way she was able to seize a knife used in the onion fields and struck him with great force. Thereafter he was able to go to the front of the yard, where he collapsed and died. Defendant tried to tend to him, and upon being arrested, expressed her anxiety as to what would happen to the children.
It becomes unnecessary to discuss the testimony. It is conceded that defendant killed her husband. She claimed she did it in self-defense. A short resume of her previous life shows that she had ample reason to fear him.
We shall discuss the principal claims of error relied upon. Among the several witnesses to the fatal quarrel was one Carue Allen who was in the car at the time. Carue testified before the magistrate on or about August 20, 1943. Defendant was present but had no attorney. She, however, acted as her own attorney and cross-examined Carue, asking him several questions. His testimony was corroborated in almost every detail by other witnesses. None of them could tell just what happened when she seized the onion knife and stabbed Hunley. Many things that Carue testified to were admitted by defendant when she took the witness stand. He did testify that he had heard her threaten to kill her husband on one or two previous occasions. This she denied, but admitted that she stated he ought to be killed. At the examination before the magistrate Carue stated that he expected to be inducted into the army shortly, that he was going to leave Michigan the following week for Kentucky. He was served with subpoena the same day ordering him to be present at the trial in the circuit court. He did not show up on September 29, 1943, and the testimony given before the magistrate was read to the jury. Defendant's attorney claims that Carue should have been put under bond to appear as a material witness, or that he should have been extradited from Kentucky under Act No. 175, chap. 7, §§ 80, 81, Pub.Acts 1927, as added by Act No. 309, Pub.Acts 1931, Act No. 246, Pub.Acts 1935 and Act No. 218, Pub.Acts 1939 (Comp. Laws Supp.1940, §§ 17293–1, 17293–2, Stat.Ann.1945, Cum.Supp. § 28.1020, Stat.Ann. § 28.1021). This latter claim was made at the trial. It is, however, not renewed in the brief. There is no showing that such provisions of Act No. 175, as so amended, apply or that Kentucky has a corresponding reciprocal statute to Act No. 175, as so amended, supra, which only applies to extradition from States that have such a reciprocal statute. In People v. Serra, 301 Mich. 124, 3 N.W.2d 35, we held that the statute was not mandatory; the prosecution need not apply for a certificate so as to extradite a material witness in a pending cause. The statute authorizing the requiring of bail by a material witness permits the court to demand it if he believes that there would be a loss of the testimony of such witness if he does not attend. There could not be a loss of the testimony of this witness as he had already testified. Testimony taken before a magistrate may be read if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial