People v. Peranio
| Decision Date | 13 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 125.,125. |
| Citation | 195 N.W. 670,225 Mich. 125 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. PERANIO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; Benjamin Williams, Judge.
Louis Peranio was convicted of homicide, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ. Roscoe C. Griffith, of Detroit, for appellant.
John Simpson, Pros. Atty., and Harry E. Barnard, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Jackson, for the People.
On the night of September 17, 1921, at about 11 o'clock, a storekeeper named Louis Woloshen was shot and killed near his place of business in Jackson, Mich., by a highway robber in a ‘holdup,’ at the transaction is termed.
It is stated in the brief of defendant's counsel that--
‘The defendant on said night met Louis Martin and Tom Corbay, who solicited him to accompany them to the scene of the homicide, on the plea that they, said Martin and Corbay, were out of employment, funds, and were hungry, and that they wanted to hold up the deceased and obtain some money.
‘After pleading with defendant, who at first refused, he loaned said Martin his revolver, and took said Martin and Corbay to the scene of the holdup, said defendant remaining in the machine quite a long distance from the tragedy.
‘After the crime the defendant remained in Jackson, where he was employed, for several weeks, and, work being slack, he went to Grand Rapids, Mich., where he was informed he could obtain employment, and did secure employment.’
The record shows that defendant was arrested for complicity in the murder of Woloshen and taken back to Jackson on the morning of May 9, 1922, and there put in the county jail. Later in the day the prosecuting attorney visited the jail, and interviewed him in the presence of certain officers. One of the circuit court stenographers of Jackson county was present part of the time, and took in shorthand the questions asked of and answered by him relative to the crime. He was first told that the party interviewing him was the prosecuting attorney of Jackson county, who stated he wanted to ask him some questions about the Woloshen murder, saying:
He then, in answer to questions, detailed the incidents of the tragedy so far as he claimed to know them. In the interview the prosecuting attorney not only told him that he need not answer the questions, and whatever he said might be used against him, but also told defendant he thought him guilty of murder, and it was his duty as prosecuting attorney to prosecute him for that offense, and such being the case he did not want defendant to accept his statement or views as true, or act upon them. He could be arraigned in court, and tried if he desired, explaining to him the steps which would be taken to bring him before the court by a preliminary examination where he could have his own attorney, and, if bound over to the circuit court for trial, the court would appoint an attorney to defend him, if he did not have means to employ one. In answer to defendant's inquiry as to what his sentence would be if he pleaded guilty, the prosecutor answered he would receive a life sentence in the state prison, with possibility of the same being shortened later to 25 years, less good time, by parole or pardon, which would be a matter entirely in the hands of the Governor and board of pardons.
Defendant having signified his intention to plead guilty, complaint and warrant were promptly prepared, and he was taken before a magistrate, where he was advised of his rights, waived examination, and was bound over for trial to the circuit court, which was in session on that day. He was then arraigned under an information charging him with the crime of murder to which he pleaded guilty. After a private examination separate and apart, the court sentenced him to state prison for life.
Later counsel employed by or for him moved in the circuit court for a new trial, on the ground that his constitutional rights had not been protected, filing in support of the motion his affidavit, in which he stated that the prosecuting attorney--
‘having obtained a statement from deponent, then advised him that the best thing he could do was to plead guilty, and not being acquainted with the court proceedings, and believing that said prosecuting attorney was acting for the best interests of deponent, accepted his advice, and entered a plea of guilty, and within a space of about three hours from the time of his arrival in Jackson he had been hurried to the office of said prosecuting attorney and ushered into court.
‘That deponent has a number of relatives in the city of Detroit that were and are able to employ counsel for said deponent, and if said deponent had been given an opportunity to do so would have been represented in said cause of action and had an opportunity for a trial of his case.
‘That said deponent is unable to understand the English language sufficient to know what the effect would be for pleading guilty to said charge upon the advice of said prosecuting atttorney.’
Saying further that he did not commit the crime charged against him; was not present when it was committed; had nothing to do with the homicide; and, if given a fair and impartial trial, he would, if found guilty at all, be convicted of a much lesser offense than murder in the first degree.
He nowhere states or claims that the answers he gave to the prosecuting attorney as taken by the stenographer were untrue in any particular, his only claim being that, because he did not expect anybody would be shot or killed in the holdup, and wasn't present when it was done, he was not guilty of murder. An affidavit by the prosecuring attorney sustained by others who were present is in direct denial of any inducement or advice that it would be the best thing for him to plead guilty, but he was fully advised of his rights, and the interview was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jones
...against him for counselling and procuring the commission of the felony, that is, of accessory before the fact to murder. People v. Peranio, 225 Mich. 125, 195 N.W. 670. The court should have charged the jury on this phase of the evidence, explained the legal meaning of accessory before the ......
- People v. Savage