People v. McGuire

• Decision Date: 21 December 1891
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MCGUIRE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

89 Mich. 64
50 N.W. 786

PEOPLE
v.
MCGUIRE.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 21, 1891.

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

James McGuire was convicted of burglary, and assigns error. Reversed, and a new trial granted.

[50 N.W. 787]

A. A. Ellis, Atty. Gen., and S. W. Burroughs, Pros. Atty., for the People. A. H. McDermott, ( J. Logan Chipman, of counsel,) for defendant.

MORSE, J.

The respondent was convicted in the recorder's court of the city of Detroit of the crime of burglary. The case is brought here upon exceptions before sentence. All the exceptions save one relate to the conduct of the prosecuting attorney upon the trial. There are 12 assignments in all. None of them have any importance except the eleventh and twelfth. In the course of his argument the prosecuting attorney said: “The defendant is entitled to the reasonableness of every doubt. I admit that; but, gentlemen of the jury, if I had any belief of any doubt that was reasonable in the face of this testimony, as your prosecutor, I would tell you so.” The respondent's counsel requested the court to charge the jury that they must not consider the belief of the prosecuting attorney, or his impression of the testimony. The circuit judge did not give this instruction, and made no reference to the matter in his charge. The expressions of a public prosecutor touching upon his belief in the guilt of an accused person have been passed upon by this court in People v. Quick, 58 Mich. 322, 25 N. W. Rep. 302;People v. Dane, 59 Mich. 550, 26 N. W. Rep. 781;People v. Welch, 80 Mich. 616, 45 N. W. Rep. 482;People v. Hess, 85 Mich. 128, 48 N. W. Rep. 181. The remarks in this case come the nearest to those of Mr. Casgrain in People v. Hess, supra, than to any other that have been called to our attention for review. We held in that case that the prosecuting officer has the right to argue to the jury that the defendant is guilty from the testimony, and to state to them what evidence before them convinces him and should convince them of such guilt. In People v. Quick, 58 Mich. 322, 25 N. W. Rep. 302, the prosecutor said to the jury that, as a man and a citizen, and under the solemnity of his judicial oath, he believed the witnesses for the defendant not only lied, but that they had committed willful and deliberate perjury, and that the accused stole the watch and hid it. This belief was not given as a deduction from the testimony. Held to be reversible error. In People v. Dane, 59 Mich. 550, 26...