People v. Radley

• Citation: 86 N.W. 1029,127 Mich. 627
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 10 July 1901
• Parties: PEOPLE v. RADLEY.

86 N.W. 1029

127 Mich. 627

PEOPLE v. RADLEY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 10, 1901

Error to circuit court, Muskegon county; Fred J. Russell, Judge.

Albert Radley was convicted of being a disorderly person, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Turner & Turner, for appellant.

Charles B. Cross, Pros. Atty., and George S. Lovelace, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

MONTGOMERY C.J.

The respondent was convicted of being a disorderly person, in that he was, on the 5th of April, 1891, and for six weeks prior thereto, a drunkard. The offense was charged as a second offense. The case is before us for review on error.

The first assignment of error relates to the ruling of the circuit judge in holding that a question put to a juror on the voir dire was not proper. The examination was as follows 'Mr. Turner (question of a juror): You say you have a prejudice against a man who drinks or gets intoxicated occasionally? A. I don't know what you might call it. I said I was not in sympathy with the liquor business. Q. Have you a feeling against a man of that character? A. Yes, I don't like bad men that will throw themselves away, and get drunk, and become disorderly and fight. Q. You do have then, some prejudice against a man who drinks? Mr. Cross: I object to that question as it is put. The Court: I don't think that is a proper question.' We agree with the circuit judge that the question as put was improper. The question appeared to be an attempt to sum up what the juror had stated, and it did not do so fairly. The witness had not stated that he had a prejudice against a man who drinks. The unfairness manifest in this question could easily have been avoided, and a new question put, which would have given all the light desired.

The respondent's counsel contend that the complaint is insufficient, in that it charges that the respondent was a drunkard, without defining a drunkard. The contention is that the respondent should have been charged with being an habitual drunkard. The complaint follows the language of the statute. The defendant's counsel, in support of another contention, cite numerous authorities who hold that the word 'drunkard' means one who habitually gets drunk. The single word is, therefore, sufficient to apprise respondent of the offense with which he is charged. Com v. Boon, 2 Gray, 74.

The prosecution introduced evidence of prosecutions of respondent for being drunk under ordinances of the city of Muskegon. A number of objections were taken to this testimony, but none which meet the purpose for which the evidence was admitted and, in our opinion, competent. The proceedings in these cases show that respondent was on various occasions during the period covered by this complaint charged with intoxication, and pleaded guilty to the charge. These records were admissible as in the nature of admissions of fact which tended to support the main charge. The respondent's counsel asked ...