People v. Pratt, 105.

• Decision Date: 27 June 1930
• Docket Number: No. 105.,105.
• Citation: 231 N.W. 564,251 Mich. 243
• Parties: PEOPLE v. PRATT.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

251 Mich. 243

231 N.W. 564

PEOPLE

v.PRATT.

No. 105.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 27, 1930.

Error to Superior Court of Grand Rapids; Leonard D. Verdier, Judge.

Herbert Pratt was convicted of robbery armed, and he brings error.

Reversed, new trial directed, etc.

Argued before the Entire Bench. Floyd H. Skinner, of Grand Rapids (Joseph R. Gillard, of Grand Rapids, and George S. Baldwin, of Munsing, of counsel,), for appellant.

Bartel J. Jonkman, Pros. Atty., and Thaddeus B. Taylor, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Grand Rapids, for the People.

FEAD, J.

Defendant was convicted of robbery armed and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The complaining witness and another young woman occupied a room with two beds on the ground floor of a house in Grand Rapids. Across a small hall from them abode a man. While there were discrepancies in the testimony of the women, they stated in substance that, about 5:45 o'clock in the morning of April 25, 1929, a man rapped on their window, pretending to have a telegram; he was not in uniform; they saw him through the window and did not know him; one of them told him to go to the front door; she let him in, he took her by the hand, led her back into the room, displayed an open hunting knife with a four-inch blade, and thereatened to hurt her if she gave an alarm; he stayed in the room about two hours or until 8 o'clock; he demanded their money and rifled their purses, taking some money and a ring of small value; before doing so, he had bound their hands, put them upon the beds, and their backs were turned toward him when he took the money, so they did not see it but they missed it after he had gone; he struck prosecutrix while he was searching for money; he tore a dress to strips, bound the women hand and foot, gagged and blind-folded them, put one on each bed, then moved them about in the room; he cut the nightgown of complainant to strips so that she was practically naked; he moved her to a the women hand and foot, gagged and blindfolded she was shivering; he laid her on the floor on a cover from the bed, got a pillow for her head at her request, and unbound her eyes, mouth, and feet on her promise not to scream; then attempted an indecent assault on her, which was unsuccessful; he choked her; the assault was about 8 o'clock; while he was attempting the assault the landlord's daughter appeared in the front hall, the women screamed, and the man fled through the window. They further stated that, soon after he came, the man attempted to pull down a curtain, tore it off the window, and this made the room light so they could clearly see the assailant; he also called their attention to his appearance so they could identify him later. They told the police that he did not look like a colored man, although he was dark. They testified at the trial that he was obviously colored. The torn dress and nightgown were not produced.

The landlord's daughter testified that she went down into the front hall about 8 o'clock, heard a gasp, pounding, and a man's voice, called her parents, who demanded admittance, and she suggested they break down the door. She said nothing of hearing a scream nor of the condition of prosecutrix's dress.

Defendant, a colored man, was arrested a week later. There was some uncertainty as to his identification, but the young woman testified positively he was the assaulter. His defense was an alibi.

Most of the assignments of error are so clearly unfounded as to merit no discussion except to say that defendant's complaint that the people injected race feeling into the case is without basis in the record. The trial was conducted with admirable calmness and fairness and a complete absence of attempt at prejudice. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, as the testimony presented fair issues of fact for the jury and would have justified a verdict either of guilty or not guilty.

Defendant preferred no requests to charge. Nowhere in the charge did the court leave to the jury the question of whether the alleged crime had been committed, but he instructed:

‘The question in this case, therefore, is not whether the offense alleged in this information was committed. It is not disputed, but what these young women were assaulted and robbed at the point of a dangerous weapon of this money and this ring by some person. The question in this case is whether or not they were assaulted by the respondent.’

In every criminal case it is incumbent upon the people, to warrant a...