People v. Machen

• Decision Date: 05 July 1894
• Citation: 59 N.W. 664,101 Mich. 400
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MACHEN.

59 N.W. 664

101 Mich. 400

PEOPLE v. MACHEN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 5, 1894

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

Arthur Machen, convicted of larceny from the person, brings error. Affirmed.

Harlow P. Davock, for appellant.

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

GRANT, J.

Respondent was convicted of an attempt to commit larceny from the person. Two officers testified that their attention had been called to his actions, that they watched him, and arrested him with his hand in a lady's pocket.

1. Respondent's counsel requested that one officer be excluded while the other was testifying, which request was refused. This point is ruled by People v. Burns, 67 Mich. 537, 35 N.W. 154. The refusal was not error.

2. One Orth, just previous to the arrest, had seen respondent with a newspaper in one hand and his other hand among the ladies' dresses, feeling their pockets, and notified one of the officers of his movements. This information caused the officers to watch him. Error is alleged upon the admission of this evidence. It was competent as a part of the res gestae, tending to show the intent.

3. During the trial the prosecuting attorney was permitted to indorse the name of a witness upon the information after testifying that he had just learned that he was a material witness. In this there was no error.

4. There was no error in admitting evidence that a billy was found upon the person of the respondent at the time of his arrest.

5. Complaint is made that the judge, in charging the jury, said: "You have heard the testimony for the prosecution. That is all there is to this case,-the testimony for the prosecution." No testimony was offered on the part of the respondent. The judge fully and fairly instructed the jury upon the presumptions of innocence, reasonable doubt, and all the elements necessary to be proven in order to convict. This language, when considered with the entire charge, cannot be construed, as counsel insist, into even an intimation on the part of the judge that the people had established their case. The case was fairly submitted to the jury.

We find no error, and the conviction is affirmed. The other justices concurred.