People v. Ruggero

• Decision Date: 04 June 1923
• Docket Number: No. 129,April Term.,129
• Citation: 193 N.W. 861,223 Mich. 368
• Parties: PEOPLE v. RUGGERO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

223 Mich. 368

193 N.W. 861

PEOPLE

v.RUGGERO.

No. 129, April Term.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 4, 1923.

Error to Recorder's Court of Detroit; Pliny W. Marsh, Judge.

George Ruggero was convicted of taking indecent liberties with the person of a female child of the age of 11 years, and he brings error. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ.Connolly & Henderson, of Detroit, for appellant.

Andrew B. Dougherty, Atty. Gen., and Paul W. Voorhies, Pros. Atty., and W. Gomer Krise, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Detroit, for the People.

SHARPE, J.

Defendant reviews his conviction on a charge of taking indecent liberties with the person of Evelyn Kelsey, a female child of the age of 11 years, by writ of error.

The little girl testified: That she went to defendant's store and purchased some milk, bread, and stamps; that they were alone in the store; that after waiting on her he came around the counter, sat down on a chair, held her, and put his hands under her clothing and upon her private parts; that she pulled away from him, and went home; on the way she dropped the bottle of milk, and was sent back after another; that on her return home she was excited, and her mother asked her what had happened, and she told her. Her father testified to her age. Her mother was not sworn. At the conclusion of her testimony the following occurred (Mr. Toy was assistant prosecuting attorney and Mr. Speed and Mr. Ring the attorneys for the defendant):

‘Mr. Toy: We offer Florence Andrews, Dorothy Hayes, Cathleen Krimmel, for examination.

‘Mr. Speed: Now, just a minute. I object to that remark by counsel, and ask that it be stricken from the record, and that the jury be cautioned to disregard it. The Supreme Court has held that that is improper practice for the prosecutor to offer witnesses indorsed upon the information.

‘Mr. Toy: All right; I consent to that, if the court please. Florence Andrews. I might say at this time, if the court please, in addition to Florence Andrews, the people have ready Dorothy Hayes--

‘Mr. Ring: Just a minute, please.

‘Mr. Toy: Cathleen Krimmel.

‘Mr. Ring: If the court please, I move the jury be excused for a minute.

‘The Court: Surely. You may step into your jury room.’

After discussion, in which defendant's counsel asked that a mistrial be declared, the jury were recalled, and the court said to them:

‘Just before you retired to your jury room the offer was made by the prosecutor to produce certain witnesses. That offer has been stricken from the record, and any reference to it should not in any way be considered by you in your deliberations. Your deliberations must be solely upon the testimony of the witnesses who have appeared here on the stand, and disregard any remarks of counsel in this connection or in any other connection except as they may argue this case for you, expressing their views in a proper manner.’

The prosecution then rested. The defendant testified, denying the charge. Four women who lived near by testified that his reputation in the community was good, while...