People v. Huntley

• Decision Date: 11 May 1897
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HUNTLEY ET AL.

71 N.W. 178

112 Mich. 569

PEOPLE v. HUNTLEY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 11, 1897

Error to circuit court, Jackson county; Erastus Peck, Judge.

Edward Huntley, William Curley, and William Boote were convicted of assault with intent to kill, and bring error. Affirmed.

Eugene Pringle, for appellants.

Elmer Kirkby, Pros. Atty. (Charles A. Blair, of counsel), for the People.

LONG C.J.

The information in this cause charges that the respondents, on to wit "the 26th day of November, 1895, at the city of Jackson, in said Jackson county, they, the said Edward Huntley, William Curley, William Boote, and William Maloney being then and there convicts imprisoned, for a term other than life, in the state prison at the city of Jackson within said county, under and by the authority of the laws of the state of Michigan, with force and arms in and upon one Albert C. Northrup, then and there being, did make an assault, and him, the said Albert C. Northrup, then and there did beat, wound, and bruise, with intent him, the said Albert C. Northrup, then and there to kill and murder, and other injuries to him, the said Albert C. Northrup, then and there did, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the people of the state of Michigan." To this information the respondents demurred. The demurrer was overruled, and the respondents thereafter filed pleas in abatement. The prosecuting attorney demurred to these pleas, and the demurrer was sustained. William Maloney asked for a separate trial, which was granted. Upon the trial of all the respondents, except Maloney, they were convicted. Sentence was pronounced against Edward Huntley upon the verdict of the jury, in part reciting: "It appearing to the court from the evidence adduced that the said Edward Huntley was at the time said crime was committed, and now is, a convict confined in the state prison at Jackson, in said state, serving an unexpired sentence therein imposed upon him by the recorder's court of the city of Detroit, on the 12th day of April, A. D. 1888, for the period of 20 years from and including said day, and that the crime of which he was convicted in this cause was committed by him within said state prison. Therefore it is ordered and adjudged by the said court now here that the said Edward Huntley be confined in the state prison at Jackson in this state, at hard labor, for the period of ten years, to commence at the expiration of the term he was so serving under his said sentence by said recorder's court when the crime for which he is now sentenced was committed." The former sentences of the other two respondents, Curley and Boote, it appears, would soon expire; and thereupon the court sentenced each of them to be confined in the state prison at Jackson at hard labor for the period of 10 years from and including the day of sentence.

On the trial, the three respondents being tried together, the prosecution called George R. Stone as a witness, and, before he had given any testimony, the attorney for respondents objected to any testimony being given under the information, alleging that it did not charge any offense known to the law of this state. This objection was overruled, and respondents' counsel excepted. Witnesses were sworn upon the part of the people, and also of the respondents, from which it appears that Edward Huntley was held as a convict in the state prison at Jackson. The people then offered in evidence a mittimus. Counsel for respondents objected to the introduction of this, for the reason, as stated by him, that "it does not show a conviction for any crime known to the laws of this state." This mittimus shows the conviction of Huntley on April 12, 1888, on a trial before a jury, with having, on the "27th day of March, committed the crime of burglary, being armed with a dangerous weapon, to wit, a pistol loaded with powder and balls, at the city of Detroit, Wayne county, Michigan." Evidence was also introduced, showing that the information in that case was filed in the recorder's court in the city of Detroit; that defendant Huntley pleaded orally thereto, "Not guilty;" that he was the same Edward Huntley as the one on trial. The information was also produced, and put in evidence, and charges substantially that Mathew Monahan and Edward Huntley, late of said city of Detroit, in the county aforesaid, on the 27th day of March, 1888, at the said city of Detroit, at about the hour of 1 in the nighttime of said day, "with force and arms, the dwelling house of Edmund Austin, there situate, feloniously and burglariously did break and enter, with intent the personal property, goods, and chattels of him, the said Edmund Austin, in said dwelling house being found, then and there feloniously and burglariously to steal, take, and carry away; he, the said Edmund Austin, at the time of the breaking and entering aforesaid, being lawfully in said dwelling house, and they, the said Mathew Monahan and Edward Huntley, being then and there armed with a dangerous weapon, to wit, a pistol, loaded with powder and balls, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided." Other evidence was also offered on the part of the people showing that respondent Huntley took part at the time mentioned in the information in an assault within the state prison at Jackson upon Albert C. Northrup, and there was also evidence tending to show the intent with which the assault was committed, which, if believed by the jury and the respondent was properly charged in the information, was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

After the conviction of Huntley, he moved in arrest of judgment, setting out: (1) That he has been prosecuted while serving a sentence other than life upon a previous conviction in the state prison at Jackson, which sentence was not imposed upon him after he had served a second term in said prison. (2) That this respondent is at said prison placed in the class of convicts, and entitled by law for allowances for good conduct or "good time"; and it is indefinite and uncertain when the term of his present sentence will expire. Like motions were entered in behalf of defendants Curley and Boote, and the motions denied. In the case of William Curley, like proceedings were had, and like testimony was offered to sustain the conviction. The information in the case of Curley recites substantially that "William Curley, late of said city of Detroit, on the 17th day of June, 1892, at said city of Detroit, in the county aforesaid, about the hour of 10:35 in the nighttime of said day, with force and arms, the dwelling house of Julius Stoll, there situate, feloniously and burglariously did break and enter, with intent the goods and chattels of him, the said Julius Stoll, in said dwelling house then and there being found, then and there feloniously and burglariously to steal, take, and carry away, no person lawfully therein being put in fear." This conviction was on the 23d day of August, 1892, and he was sentenced to the state prison at Jackson for the period of five years from that date, as appears by the record. Respondent Boote was convicted in the county of Ottawa, August 24, 1894, of the crime of larceny from the person, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison at Jackson for three years from and including that day. In each of the cases it appeared that a mittimus was produced by the clerk of the prison, and that it was delivered to him by the officer in charge of each respondent at the time of reception at the prison. The introduction of each mittimus was objected to, on the ground that it was neither a certified transcript from the minutes of the court, nor a warrant under the seal of the court, requiring the convict to be removed from the county jail to the state prison.

The first contention made by counsel for respondents is as to the sufficiency of the information under which they were convicted. The information does not state as to any one of the respondents a conviction or sentence of any court, or of any crime committed, except that it states that they were convicts, imprisoned for a term other than life in the state prison at the city of Jackson, within said county, under and by authority of the laws of the state of Michigan. It is contended that it was necessary to prove such convictions and sentences, and therefore necessary to state the same in the information, as any fact necessary to be proved to make the act complained of a crime is of substance in an indictment and what is necessary to be proved must be alleged. Section 64 of Act No. 118 (Pub. Acts 1893) provides: "Any convict now or hereafter confined in any prison for any term other than life, who, during the term of such confinement, shall commit any crime punishable under the laws of this state by imprisonment in such institution, shall be subject to the same punishment as if the crime had been committed at any other place or by a person not so confined." Section 65 provides for the jurisdiction of the circuit court in which the prison is situated, and that the proceedings shall in all ways conform to the law and rules in cases of like offenses occurring elsewhere, "except that the examination may be held in one of the offices of the penal institution where the crime is committed, at the option of the justice of the peace before whom the complaint may be made, and that the warrant shall be made in the ordinary form, shall be...