People v. Miller

• Decision Date: 07 March 1930
• Docket Number: No. 133.,133.
• Citation: People v. Miller, 250 Mich. 72, 229 N.W. 475 (Mich. 1930)
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MILLER.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

250 Mich. 72

229 N.W. 475

PEOPLE

v.MILLER.

No. 133.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 7, 1930.

Error to Circuit Court, Ingham County; Charles B. Collingwood, Judge.

Etta May Miller was convicted of furnishing two pints of moonshine whisky to others as a fourth conviction of a felony, and she appeals.

Reversed, and a new trial granted.

Argued before the Entire Bench, except McDONALD, J.Person & Marshall, of Lansing, for appellant.

Wilber M. Brucker, Atty. Gen., and John W. Bird, Pros. Atty., and Dan D. McCullough, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Lansing, for the People.

WIEST, C. J.

Defendant was charged with and, upon trial by jury, convicted of furnishing two pints of moonshine whisky to Emmet Clark and John Haynes. An information was then filed charging that it was her fourth conviction of a felony and, upon trial of that issue by jury, it was so found and she was sentenced to prison for life, under the provisions of the Criminal Code, Act No. 175, Pub. Acts 1927. Review is by writ of error. One error commands reversal of the principal conviction and, as the other alleged errors are not likely to recur upon a new trial and the conviction of a fourth felony falls with this reversal, we confine opinion to the one point.

[1] The defense was alibi. Two police officers testified that they saw defendant hand two bottles to Clark and Haynes, who were in an automobile in the driveway at the home of Matt Smith on Lathrop street, in the city of Lansing, the 3d day of October, 1928, at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Clark and Haynes were pursued by the officers, arrested, and produced as witnesses at the trial, but without much aid to the prosecution. Defendant resided on Lathrop street about a city block from Matt Smith's house, and she testified that she was home all the afternoon of October 3d, and in this she was supported by the testimony of her daughter-in-law and a man who was there waiting for defendant's son to come home from work. This alibi testimony was introduced without objection. The court was requested to instruct the jury: ‘I further instruct you that it is the claim of the defendant, Etta Miller, that at the time the people claim she was at the home of one Matt Smith that she was then in her own home and not at the home of Matt Smith and she has introduced testimony to substantiate her claim and I instruct you that if you believe this testimony your verdict must be not guilty for it is evident that if the defendant in this case was at her own home at the time the people claim she was at the home of Matt Smith she could not have committed this offense and on this point I further instruct you that it is not the duty of Etta Miller to...