People v. Place

• Decision Date: 05 March 1924
• Docket Number: No. 136.,136.
• Citation: 226 Mich. 212,197 N.W. 513
• Parties: PEOPLE v. PLACE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

226 Mich. 212

197 N.W. 513

PEOPLE

v.PLACE.

No. 136.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 5, 1924.

Exceptions from Circuit Court, Muskegon County; John Vanderwerp, Judge.

Fred Place was convicted of indecent assault. On exceptions before sentence. Verdict set aside, and new trial granted.

Argued before CLARK, C. J., and McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ. A. B. Dougherty, Atty. Gen., and Harry W. Jackson, Pros. Atty., and R. Glen Dunn, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Muskegon, for the People.

George H. Cross, of Muskegon, for respondent.

STEERE, J.

Defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Muskegon county of having on February 3, 1923, assaulted and taken indecent liberties with the person of Cleo Spicer, a female child under the age of 14 years, without committing or intending to commit the crime of rape.

At the time the crime is charged to have been committed defendant, Fred Place, was general manager of the Merchants' Collection Association, and he is claimed by the prosecution to have perpetrated it in the office of that association in the Rosen Block, in the city of Muskegon, on the afternoon of Saturday, February 23, 1923, during office hours.

The only direct proof of the commission of the offense was the testimony of the girl claimed to have been assaulted, who testified in response to leading questions that she went to Place's office on the afternoon of that day, where she was alone with him, when he seized hold of her, pulled up her dress, put his hand under and loosened her clothing, and handled her in an improper and indecent manner, which, as told by her, constituted the offense charged.

Defendant raises and argues numerous assignments of error, most of which were also raised in a motion for a new trial. A point particularly pressed is that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of evidence. This is based on the claim that other persons were in the office with Place the entire afternoon of that Saturday, as shown by the testimony of various witnesses of different callings and walks in life who visited defendant's office for business purposes that afternoon, some confirming the date by receipts given them on that day. Most of them were apparently disinterested witnesses, who told of what times they went to his office, what the business was which took them there, of people they saw sitting there waiting to be served, how long they had to wait while defendant was busy with others, and how long it took to transact their own business with him. The various times these witnesses give as to their arrival and the length of time they remained cover the entire period from before noon until the office closed in the evening at 6 o'clock. Certain of them identified Cleo Spicer as a girl they saw come into the office and ask to use defendant's typewriter, which he refused her, and she soon left apparently provoked at his refusal. If believed the testimony of these witnesses shows that other persons than the girl and defendant were in his office during all that afternoon either waiting for or being waited upon by him, and that nothing of the kind she testified to took place there. While it was primarily for the jury to pass upon their testimony and hers, the situation suggests a careful scrutiny of certain errors assigned for defendant claimed to have prejudicially influenced the verdict.

Defendant had at one time lived in the same building as the Spicer family, and had been acquainted with the girl Cleo for about four years. Her mother sent her to his office occasionally on Saturdays to make payments on some lots she had bought, and the girl knew defendant's stenographer, whom she called Stella. She testified that she also used to go up there to visit with Stella, and they had a typewriter which they sometimes allowed her to use.

Cleo's first disclosure of the alleged assault was to a policewoman named Mrs. McVeigh, whose duties were in connection with the welfare department. On March 15 Mrs. McVeigh sent to the school Cleo attended and had her brought over for an interview. She questioned and took her before Mr. Hansen, the chief of police.

Mrs. McVeigh made the complaint in this case, apparently on information elicited from the girl. Hansen was permitted to relate, against objection, that in the interview before him the girl told of defendant's criminal conduct with her, and that he had taken such advantage of her in his office on several occasions. Her story was obtained by the police officers from the girl by questioning her some six weeks after the offense is said to have taken place. The rule is well settled in this class of cases that if within a reasonable time the party assaulted makes a voluntary complaint it is competent to show when, where, and to whom a complaint was made, but details given of the cause of complaint are not competent. People v. Hicks, 98 Mich. 86, 56 N. W. 1102;People v. Bernor, 115 Mich. 692, 74 N. W. 184;People v. Marrs, 125 Mich. 376, 84...