People v. Pichette

• Decision Date: 05 January 1897
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. PICHETTE.

69 N.W. 739

111 Mich. 461

PEOPLE v. PICHETTE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 5, 1897

Error to circuit court, Menominee county; John W. Stone, Judge.

Louis Pichette was convicted of burning a sawmill, and brings error. Affirmed.

J. M. Opsahl and Frank Bracelin, for appellant.

Fred A Maynard, Atty. Gen., and W. H. Phillip, Pros. Atty., for the People.

HOOKER J.

The plaintiff was convicted of the burning of a sawmill under the provisions of How. Ann. St. � 9125, which punishes the willful and malicious burning of such buildings. The following is a copy of the material portion of the warrant "On the 15th day of April, A. D. 1895, at the hour of ten o'clock in the nighttime of said day, with force and arms at the township aforesaid, did set fire to and burn a certain mill, to wit, a sawmill there situate, the property of David Nadeau and Louis Nadeau, co-partners under the firm name of Nadeau Brothers, said sawmill being, with the property therein contained, then, to wit, at the time of the committing of the felony aforesaid, of the value of ten thousand dollars,-contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the people of the state of Michigan." It will be observed that the warrant does not charge a willful and malicious burning, and, as originally filed, the information was wanting in this particular, but, after motion to quash it was amended by the insertion of these words, on application of the prosecuting attorney. The plea of not guilty was entered by direction of the court, the defendant having refused to plead, and an important question in the case is whether this warrant was sufficient to support the proceedings.

The proceedings before the justice are preliminary, and the law does not require that technical accuracy necessary in an indictment or information. The complaint in cases not cognizable by a justice of the peace need be little more than verbal information of a supposed wrong. This is followed by an examination under oath of the complainant and of other witnesses if deemed necessary, and the magistrate then issues his warrant. People v. Bennett (Mich.) 65 N.W. 281. This warrant must specify the substance of the offense with which the accused is charged not with technical accuracy, but in such manner as to inform him of what he has to meet (How. Ann. St. � 9456), leaving to the information the office of describing with accuracy the offense with which he shall ultimately be charged, which is to be based, not alone upon the warrant, but upon the facts developed upon the preliminary examination, as evidenced by the depositions returned and the certificate of the magistrate; and, while we do not mean to imply that the warrant need not state the offense, we think it sufficient if it set out the substantial elements constituting it in language within the ordinary comprehension, and that it need not possess the degree of certainty of allegation requisite in indictments. Such appears to be the view that has always been taken by this court. See People v. Annis, 13 Mich. 511; People v. Hilderbrand, 71 Mich. 313, 38 N.W. 919; People v. Dyer, 79 Mich. 480, 44 N.W. 937. In Haskins v. Ralston, 69 Mich. 69, 37 N.W. 46, a warrant for forgery from which the intent to defraud was omitted was held good, although it was a statutory requisite to the offense, as much as willfulness and malice are under this statute. It was there said: "But we think the warrant, so far as the description of the offense is concerned, is sufficient. It sets out the overt acts which make up the crime completely, and a guilty knowledge of the forged character of the paper. The term 'forged,' in law, indicates a fraudulent purpose in making the paper; and proof of the facts and knowledge set up in this document would allow, although it might not under some circumstances compel, an inference of guilt. Such a description would fully inform the person charged as to what he was to meet, and of the 'nature of the accusation against him,' which is the only constitutional requirement on the subject. The constitution does not require technical accuracy, and this statute does not require it. By section 9456, How. Ann. St., it is provided that the preliminary warrant shall recite, ...