People v. Morlock, 134.
| Decision Date | 22 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 134.,134. |
| Citation | 233 Mich. 284,206 N.W. 538 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MORLOCK. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Circuit Court, Hillsdale County; Guy M. Chester, Judge.
George P. Morlock was convicted of possessing and selling intoxicating liquor. On exceptions before sentence. Conviction affirmed, and case remanded for sentence.
Argued before McDONALD, C. J., and CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.Andrew B. Dougherty, Atty. Gen., and G. Forrest Lewis, Pros. Atty., of Hillsdale, for the People.
W. D. Grommon and Paul W. Chase, both of Hillsdale, for respondent.
The defendant was convicted under an information which charged him with having intoxicating liquors in his possession, some of which he sold and furnished to one Doty Mansberger.
He conducts a soft drink parlor on Broad street in the city of Hillsdale, Mich. Mansberger was in the defendant's place of business on several occasions during the day of March 1, 1924, and while there the people say he purchased and drank hard cider, by reason of which he became intoxicated. The defendant denied that he had in his possession any intoxicating liquors, and claims that he sold Mansberger only sweet cider. The jury accepted the people's view of the facts and returned a verdict of guilty as charged. The defendant has brought the case here on exceptions before sentence.
The questions presented involve the claim that the verdict was contrary to law and against the weight of the evidence; that there was error in the admission of testimony, in prejudicial remarks of the prosecuting attorney during his argument, and in the refusal of the court to grant a motion for a new trial.
During his opening argument to the jury the prosecuting attorney said:
‘It is very peculiar that men who have a habit for drinking would go into such a place and purchase sweet cider at 10 cents a glass when they could have purchased it and put it into their own basement for 20 cents a gallon.’
Counsel for the defendant insist that the use of this language with the sanction of the court was prejudicial. We do not so regard it. The prosecuting attorney had a right to draw such an inference from the facts appearing in the record.
The alleged error in the admission of testimony arose during the examination of Roy Mansberger, who was called in rebuttal for the apparent purpose of showing that one Robert Patterson, a witness for the defendant, was intoxicated in the defendant's place of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Buckey
...& New Orleans R. Co., 307 F.2d 875, 878-880 (CA 5, 1962); 6 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), Sec. 1806.8 See, e.g., People v. Morlock, 233 Mich. 284, 286, 206 N.W.2d 538 (1925); People v. Gonyea, 126 Mich.App. 177, 337 N.W.2d 325 (1983); People v. Caldwell, 78 Mich.App. 690, 691, 261 N.W.2d 1 (1......
-
People v. Russell
...The rule is clear that a prosecuting attorney has a right to draw such an inference from the facts on record. People v. Morlock (1925), 233 Mich. 284, 206 N.W. 538; People v. Badge (1968), 15 Mich.App. 29, 165 N.W.2d Defendant also claims that the prosecutor injected a racial overtone preju......
-
People v. Bennett
...and justify the prosecutor's comments during closing argument. People v. Cona, 180 Mich. 641, 147 N.W. 525 (1914); People v. Morlock, 233 Mich. 284, 206 N.W. 538 (1925). The failure of defendant to raise any objections to the claimed prejudicial remarks made by the prosecutor in closing arg......
-
People v. Gill, Docket No. 7419
...that the 'red substance' was 'blood' was a reasonable inference which the prosecutor was entitled to argue. People v. Morlock (1925), 233 Mich. 284, 206 N.W. 538; People v. Badge (1968), 15 Mich.App. 29, 165 N.W.2d 901; People v. Russell (1970), 27 Mich.App. 654, 183 N.W.2d The defendant ar......