People v. Miller
| Decision Date | 07 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 141.,141. |
| Citation | 209 N.W. 81,235 Mich. 340 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MILLER. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Recorder's Court of Detroit; John V. Brennan, Judge.
Irma Miller was convicted of violating the act providing for the repression of prostitution, and she brings error. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Lewis, Rowlette & Bledsoe, of Detroit, for appellant.
Andrew B. Dougherty, Atty. Gen., and Robert M. Toms, Pros. Atty., and Oscar A. Kaufman, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Detroit, for the People.
Defendant was convicted of violating, as a first offense, Act No. 231, Public Acts of 1925, being an act to provide for the repression of prostitution.
Defendant, on error, contends that her arrest without warrant was illegal for the reason that, if offending, she was guilty of but a misdemeanor and was taken in no breach of the peace. The arrest was followed by complaint and warrant, under which she was held. It is not urged that evidence against her was obtained by or because of the arrest. The contention is, barely, that she should have been discharged because the arrest was illegal.
Defendant was charged and held on complaint and warrant that are regular. In the trial itself she suffered no prejudice, and was deprived of no right to which she was lawfully entitled because of the arrest. If the arrest was irregular she was not thereby given the right to say that she should not be tried at all. Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436, 7 S. Ct. 225, 30 L. Ed. 421; 16 C. J. 175; In re Little, 129 Mich. 454, 89 N. W. 38,57 L. R. A. 295.
The contention that cross-examination of defendant, for the purpose of impeachment, relative to her having been convicted of other offenses, ought not to have been permitted, is answered by People v. Cutler, 197 Mich. 6, 163 N. W. 493;People v. Frontera, 223 Mich. 258, 193 N. W. 782;Van Goosen v. Barlum, 214 Mich. 595, 183 N. W. 8.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perin v. Peuler
...Vacuum Oil Co. v. Marvin, 313 Mich. 528, 21 N.W.2d 841; Cebulak v. Lewis, is, 320 Mich. 710, 32 N.W.2d 21, 5 A.L.R.2d 186 People v. Miller, 235 Mich. 340, 209 N.W. 81; People v. Finks, 343 Mich. 304, 72 N.W.2d 250, 51 A.L.R.2d 934. The undersigned are not willing to bow further before such ......
-
People v. Bohm
...where defendant was arrested without a warrant, the legality of a defendant's arrest cannot be considered at trial. People v. Miller, 235 Mich. 340, 209 N.W. 81 (1926); People v. Robinson, 37 Mich.App. 115, 194 N.W.2d 537 (1971), and People v. Nawrocki, 6 Mich.App. 46, 148 N.W.2d 211, 150 N......
-
People v. Hill
...Mich. 229, 239 N.W. 292 (1931); United States ex rel. Penachio v. Kropp, 448 F.2d 110, 111 (C.A.6, 1971). 4 See also People v. Miller, 235 Mich. 340, 209 N.W. 81 (1926); People v. Robinson, 37 Mich.App. 115, 194 N.W.2d 537 (1971); People v. Nawrocki, 6 Mich.App. 46, 150 N.W.2d 516 (1967), h......
-
State v. Rodgers
...People v. Smith, 11 Ill.2d 280, 143 N.E.2d 50 (1957); Commonwealth v. Gorman, 288 Mass. 294, 192 N.E. 618 (1934); People v. Miller, 235 Mich. 340, 209 N.E. 81 (1926); State v. Baron, 106 N.H. 149, 207 A.2d 447 (1965); 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 144 (1961); 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 380 (198......