People v. Saccoia

• Decision Date: 02 July 1934
• Docket Number: No. 150.,150.
• Citation: 268 Mich. 132,255 N.W. 738
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SACCOIA.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

268 Mich. 132

255 N.W. 738

PEOPLE

v.SACCOIA.

No. 150.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 2, 1934.

Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit; Arthur E. Gordon, Judge.

Antonio Saccoia was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Lewis J. Weitzman, of Detroit, for appellant.

Patrick H. O'Brien, Atty. Gen., and Harry S. Toy, Pros. Atty., and Verne C. Amberson and Edmund E. Shepherd, Asst. Pros. Attys., all of Detroit, for the People.

POTTER, Justice.

At the July, 1932, term of the recorder's court for the city of Detroit, defendant was informed against, charged with the murder of Ralph De Marte June 28, 1932, in the city of Detroit. On arraignment July 22, 1932, defendant pleaded not guilty. October 17, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty and was remanded to await sentence. The cause was referred to the probation department and defendant to the psychopathic clinic. November 1, 1932, the court appointed Drs. Edward J. Agnelly, Sam J. Eder, and I. L. Polozker as a sanity commission to examine into the sanity of defendant. November 9 the sanity commission reported it found defendant same. December 9 defendant's plea of guilty entered. and vacated and a plea of not guilty entered. January 18, 1933, a jury was impaneled and sworn and the trial proceeded until January 25, 1933, when the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. Subsequently a motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and defendant sentenced to life imprisonment in the Detroit House of Correction. He appeals, claiming the trial court erred in excluding the report of the psychopathic clinic of the recorder's court; in excluding the report of the sanity commission appointed by one of the judges of the recorder's court; in refusing to permit appellant to cross-examine the witness Dr. I. L. Polozker as to statements previously made and signed by him in the reports of the psychopathis clinic and sanity commission; and in refusing to permit appellant to examine the witness Dr. Edward, J. Agnelly as to his findings, concerning appellant's mental condition.

1. It is contended the rules of evidence in civil cases are the same in criminal cases. One of the long-established, firmly fixed, and generally recognized exceptions is that stated in section 19 of article 2 of the Constitution, which gives to defendant, on trial, the right ‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him,’ which constitutional provision is amplified by section 17129, Comp. Laws 1929, which gives to defendant, on trial, the right to meet the witnesses who are produced against him face to face. Had the people sought to introduce, upon defendant's trial, the report of the psychopathic clinic or of the commission on insanity, defendant could have successfully objected to their introduction upon well-settled statutory and constitutional grounds, that he was entitled to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to meet such witnesses face to face. These constitutional and statutory provisions are not accidental. They were incorporated in the jurisprudence of this country by reason of the universal condemnation of the inquisitorial methods of the starchamber which had been in force in England.

2. It is suggested the report of an inquisition of sanity was introduced in the trial of Earl Ferrers. 19 How. State Trials, 538. Defendant in that case was tried before the House of Peers, in Westminster-Hall, in 1760. The defendant was indicted in the usual way. He pleaded not guilty. As stated by the Attorney General, the prisoner had a right under the law of England, by reason of being an earl, to the privilege of being tried before the House of Peers. Participating in this trial was Attorney General Pratt, afterward Lord Chief Justice Camden and Lord Chancellor of England, the Solicitor General, Lord Mansfield, and Earl Hardwicke. The case did not involve the introduction or consideration of the report of an inquisition into the sanity of the prisoner, but, on the contrary, upon the trial of the case witnesses were produced, examined, and cross-examined in the presence of the accused in the usual way. Among the witnesses to defendant's insanity were Dr. John Monroe, Thomas Kirkland, surgeon, and Thomas Goostrey. The defense was handled substantially as the defense of insanity is made here, in the absence of psychopathic clinics and commissions on insanity. The particular thing of importance in the case is the insistence of the Attorney General that the witnesses, though medical men, detail the specific things which indicated insanity, a position in which he was sustained by Earl Hardwicke. This case in no sense involves the question here.

3. The psychopathic clinic is authorized by Act No. 369, § 3, Pub. Acts 1919, section 16520, Comp. Laws 1929, which provides: ‘The court shall also have power to make provision for a psychopathic department of the court and have medical and psychopathic investigations and examinations and treatment of persons coming before said court.’

The psychopathic department of the court is a part of the court. Its reports are public reports, authorized by law, and the defendant had a right to have access thereto and to learn their contents.

Sanity Commissions are regulated by section 27 of chapter 7 of Code of Criminal Procedure, section 17241, Comp. Laws 1929, as amended by Act No. 317, Pub. Acts 1931, which provides: ‘When a person accused of any felony shall appear to be insane or shall have been acquitted upon trial upon the ground of insanity, the court, being certified by the jury or otherwise of the fact, shall carefully inquire and ascertain the issue of insanity. The court shall fix the time and place for the hearing of said issue, and shall cause notice thereof to be served on the party filing the petition or making the suggestion of insanity for or on behalf of such person or on one or more of the nearest relatives or friends of such person, if known. The court shall call two or more reputable physicians and other credible witnesses to testify at said hearing, and the prosecuting attorney to aid in the examination and if it be deemed necessary to call a jury for that purpose, is fully empowered to compel the attendance of witnesses and jurors. Such alleged insane person may be represented by counsel who may appear and take part in the proceedings, cross-examine the witnesses and produce witnesses and testimony for and on behalf of such person. If it is claimed that such person became insane after the commission of the felony with which he is charged and before or during the trial thereon, the test on the trial of such issue shall be whether such person is capable of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings against him and of comprehending his own condition in reference to such proceedings and of assisting in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner. If such person is found insane, the judge of said court shall order that he be discharged from imprisonment and that he be turned over to the sheriff for safe custody and removal to the Ionia state hospital, to which hospital such person shall be committed to remain until restored to sanity. When such person shall be restored to sanity, and that fact has been determined by the superintendent of said hospital or by any other proceeding authorized by this section, the said superintendent of said hospital shall forthwith certify that fact in writing to said judge and prosecuting attorney. The judge shall thereupon immediately require the sheriff without delay to bring such person from the said hospital and place him in proper custody until he is remanded to prison, brought to trial or judgment, as the case may be, or is legally discharged. Any person who has been...