People v. Kelly

• Decision Date: 12 February 1894
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. KELLY.

57 N.W. 1090

99 Mich. 82

PEOPLE v. KELLY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 12, 1894

Error to recorder's court of Detroit; F. H. Chambers, Judge.

John Kelly was convicted of disorderly conduct, and brings error. Affirmed.

Elbridge F. Bacon, for appellant.

Allan H. Frazer, Pros. Atty., for the People.

GRANT J.

1. It is first contended that Act No. 264, Pub. Acts 1889, is in conflict with section 20 of article 4 of the constitution, in that it embraces more than one object. The act is entitled "An act relative to disorderly persons, and to repeal chapter 53 of the Compiled Laws of 1871, as amended by the several acts amendatory thereof." Section 2 of the act will be found in the margin. ^[1] Section 1 enumerates those who come under the term "disorderly persons." Among these are drunkards and tipplers. The precise contention is that the title gives no information as to what acts constitute a disorderly person, and that the third offense of which the defendant was found guilty is not expressed therein. The title to this act is the same as the titles to other acts for the punishment of disorderly persons, which have been, from time to time, enacted by the legislature, and the sections of those acts defining who are disorderly persons have been substantially the same. The term "disorderly persons" is comprehensive, and properly includes all those who are designated in the body of the act. It is within the purview of the title to include different degrees of punishment for first, second, and subsequent convictions. The crime does not consist in the fact of two or more convictions, but in the fact that he has been convicted as a disorderly person for the second or more times. Upon such subsequent trial, he must be found guilty of being a disorderly person; and, in order to impose the heavier punishment, former convictions must be proven. This objection to the law is not well founded.

2. The information charged the respondent with being a disorderly person on September 26th, and then set forth the dates of several other convictions for the same offense in the police court and in the recorder's court of the city of Detroit. It is objected that the information is fatally defective, in that it does not allege that the courts wherein the former convictions were had had jurisdiction. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the information, without having made any objection to its form, nor was the objection raised in the court below. The objection comes too late. People v Hanifan, (Mich.) 56 N.W. 1048, and authorities there cited.

3. It is objected that the court erred in permitting parol evidence of previous convictions. The record of several previous convictions was in evidence. The respondent was a witness in his own behalf, and testified that he had been confined in the house of correction six or seven times for being drunk. The error was therefore harmless.

4. It appears from the warrants which were issued by the police court wherein the respondent was examined, and the cases certified to the recorder's court for trial, that the respondent was charged with several previous convictions. The recorder's court, therefore, had jurisdiction to try the cases. It is also claimed that the identity of the respondent with the person named in the former convictions was not shown. His own admissions are sufficient identification.

5....