People v. Quick
| Decision Date | 07 February 1884 |
| Citation | 18 N.W. 375,51 Mich. 547 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. QUICK. |
Where the defendant, in a criminal action, is witness in his own behalf, it is error to exclude explanations of his conduct on the ground "that he would thereby make his own defense." He is permitted to testify in his own behalf for the very purpose of allowing him to make his own defense.
The prosecution is not bound to produce on the trial every person named as witness on the information.
J.J. Van Riper, for the People.
Thos. L. Patterson, A.R. Tripp, and T.J. Davis, for respondent.
The defendant in this case was a witness on his own behalf. The charge was of larceny of a watch. The defendant did not deny taking the watch; and the question at issue was the felonious intent. The defendant had picked up the owner of the watch from the ground in the public street, where, as he testified, he was lying partly on his face. He raised him up, and tried to have him stand on his feet. He was then asked by his counsel, "Why did you do that." This was objected to "as permitting the defendant to make his own defense," and ruled out. This was error. The purpose in permitting the defendant to testify in his own behalf is precisely this: to permit him to make his own defense. Further explanations by him were cut off by the like objections.
Other questions are raised not likely to come up in another trial, and we do not consider them. One may be mentioned, however, namely, whether the prosecution is under obligation to produce on the trial every person named as a witness on the information. We think not.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Simmons
...testifying. M.C.L. Sec. 600.2159; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.2159, People v. Renno, 392 Mich. 45, 52, 219 N.W.2d 422 (1974). In People v. Quick, 51 Mich. 547, 18 N.W. 375 (1884), the Supreme Court stated, "The purpose in permitting the defendant to testify on his own behalf is precisely this: to permi......
-
Wallace v. United States
... ... Whart. Hom. § 197; 2 Bish. Cr. Law, §§ 702, 715; 4 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 675; State v. Part- ... low, 90 Mo. 608, 4 S. W. 14; Adams v. People, 47 Ill. 376; State v. Hayes, 23 Mo. 287; State v. McDonell, 32 Vt. 491; Reed v. State, 11 Tex. App. 509 ... In Adams v. People ... People v. Baker, 96 N. Y. 340; Thurston v. Cornell, 38 N. Y. 281; Over v. Schiffling, 102 Ind. 191, 26 N. E. 91; People v. Quick, 51 Mich ... 547, 18 N. W. 375; State v. Banks, 73 Mo. 592; Fenwick v. Maryland, 63 Md. 239. In the latter case it was held that a person on trial ... ...
-
State v. Johnson
... ... to. Wharton, Crim. Pleading & Pr. (8th Ed.) § 760; 12 ... Cyc. p. 760, and cases cited; People v. Swenson, 49 ... Cal. 388; United States v. Dimmick (D. C.) 112 F ... 352; Bishop on Crim. Proc. § 707 ... Section ... other acts or declarations." Section 59, Underhill on ... Criminal Evidence; State v. Tough, 12 N.D. 425, 96 ... N.W. 1025; People v. Quick, 51 Mich. 547, 18 N.W ... 375; State v. Montgomery, 65 Iowa 483, 22 N.W. 639; ... People v. Farrell, 31 Cal. 576; Ross v ... State, 116 Ind ... ...
-
State v. Johnson
...his others acts or declarations.” Section 59, Underhill on Criminal Evidence; State v. Tough, 12 N. D. 425, 96 N. W. 1025;People v. Quick, 51 Mich. 547, 18 N. W. 375;State v. Montgomery, 65 Iowa, 483, 22 N. W. 639;People v. Farrell, 31 Cal. 576;Ross v. State, 116 Ind. 495, 19 N. E. 451;Stat......