People v. Remus

• Decision Date: 16 February 1904
• Citation: 98 N.W. 397,135 Mich. 629
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. REMUS et al.

98 N.W. 397

135 Mich. 629

PEOPLE v. REMUS et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 16, 1904

Exceptions from Circuit Court, Van Buren County; John R. Carr, Judge.

William Remus and another were convicted of keeping a drug store for the unlawful sale of liquor, and they bring exceptions. Reversed.

David Anderson, Pros. Atty., and Charles A. Blair, Atty. Gen., for the People.

CARPENTER J.

The information in this case, except in the names of persons and dates of events, is precisely like that adjudged to be sufficient in Anderson v. Van Buren Circuit Judge (Mich.) 90 N.W. 692, and charged respondents with keeping a drug store for the unlawful sale of liquor. No testimony was introduced by respondents, and the testimony of the people tended strongly to prove their guilt. The issue was submitted to the jury, who, after being out all night reported to the court the following morning that they were unable to agree. Thereupon the court said: 'Gentlemen of the jury, it is your duty to return a verdict of guilty in this case. Now, you will return to your rooms, and you will come in, under these instructions, and bring in a verdict of builty.' The jury retired, and, in accordance with the instruction, rendered a verdict of guilty; and the court denied the request of respondents' counsel to have the jury polled. The impropriety of this ruling is the principal ground upon which respondents ask to have the conviction set aside. The court assumed to direct this verdict because the reports made by respondents to the prosecuting attorney did not comply with the law; and it is to us clear that these reports, in stating the amount sold, in some cases as '1 B. Beer,' and in others as '2 B. Beer,' did not state the 'quantity of liquor procured,' as required by law. See section 25, No. 183, p. 280, Pub. Acts 1899. It is to be borne in mind, however, that respondents were not on trial for making illegal reports. They were being tried for the offense of keeping a drug store for the unlawful sales of liquor. The issue was not whether the sale was illegally reported, but whether the reported and illegal sales were in fact made. These reports undoubtedly furnished very convincing testimony, but can it be said, as a matter of law that the jury were bound to believe that the illegal sales reported had actually been made? The authority of a court to direct a verdict of guilty in a criminal case was fully considered and determined by this court in People v Warren, 122 Mich. 504, 81 N.W. 360, 80 Am. St. Rep. 582. We quote from the opinion in that case, and we think it applicable to the facts in this: 'Our attention has not been called to a case in which the judge undertook to enter a verdict for the jury when the latter failed to follow the instructions of the court, and it is not believed that such a case can be found. The cases of People v. Neumann, 85 Mich. 98 , and People v. Collison, 85 Mich. 105 , indicate very clearly that should a judge attempt to return a verdict for the jury, he would be trespassing upon the province of the jury. In all the cases where a verdict was directed, the only question involved was a question of law. As a rule, the facts were admitted, so that it was simply a question of whether the admitted facts, under the law, showed respondent was guilty of the crime. Here the facts were not admitted. It became the duty of the people to show by competent evidence the guilt of the accused. It was for the court to say what evidence was competent, and to decide whether it should be admitted or not; but, after it was admitted, it was for the jury to say what weight should attach to it. The jury were not obliged to believe a witness simply because he had been sworn. Can it be said that in this case the action of the jury cannot be accounted for upon the theory that they did not believe some of the witnesses? Whether that can be said or not, the fact remains that, under the Constitutions of the United States and of this state, before a respondent can be convicted of a felony upon a plea of not guilty, a verdict of guilty must be rendered against him by the jury. While it is the duty of the jury to take the law from the judge, and be guided by it, still, if the jury does not do its duty, its failure to do so does not confer upon the judge...