People v. Seaton, 126
| Decision Date | 22 July 1926 |
| Docket Number | June Term.,No. 126,126 |
| Citation | 235 Mich. 698,209 N.W. 917 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SEATON. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Circuit Court, Mecosta County; Joseph Barton, Judge.
Harvey Seaton was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he brings exceptions before sentence. Exceptions overruled, with directions.
Argued before the Entire Court.
Martin V. Cook, of Greenville, for appellant.
Fred R. Everett, Pros. Atty., of Big Rapids, for the People.
Defendant was informed against in the Mecosta circuit court for a violation of the prohibition law. The information contained two counts, one for making a sale of intoxicating liquor and one for having in his possession intoxicating liquor.
To maintain the first count the prosecutor showed by the two boys that they bought a pint of liquor from defendant on the date stated.
To maintain the second count the prosecutor showed another sale and delivery of intoxicating liquor by defendant to Arthur Jenson on the same date.
This latter testimony was objected to on the ground that it was an attempt to prove one offense by showing a similar offense at another time.
The testimony of the two boys, Cartright and Perry, proved the first count charging a sale. The second count charging possession was established by Jenson's testimony. He testified that he bought two quarts of whisky of defendant, and that he delivered it to him on the day mentioned. If defendant sold and delivered to Jenson two quarts of liquor, he must have had possession of it. Jenson's testimony proved two offenses—an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. The mere fact that Jenson's testimony had the effect of showing defendant guilty of making a sale did not render it inadmissible for the purpose of showing possession. Had there been only one count in the information charging possession, the testimony of Jenson would have sustained that count. Counsel's difficulty lies in the fact that the testimony proved another offense. This would not make the testimony incompetent if it proved the offense charged. When the testimony came in, the trial court took care of this question, as will be shown by the following colloquy:
‘The Prosecutor: There is a count in the declaration, in the information, possession on the same date.
‘The Court: Well, let's see, then it is your theory that he had in his possession other liquor than that shown by the evidence here to have been sold?
‘...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McCrea
...what was said or done by any of the members of the conspiracy in furtherance of such conspiracy is admissible.’ In People v. Seaton, 235 Mich. 698, 209 N.W. 917 (syllabus), it is stated: ‘If proffered testimony tends to prove the offense charged, it is not incompetent because it also tends ......
-
People v. Carter, 7
...to the jury. If a limiting instruction concerning the bank robbery had been requested, one should have been given. People v. Seaton, 235 Mich. 698, 209 N.W. 917 (1926); People v. Rice, 206 Mich. 644, 173 N.W. 495 (1919). Since there was no such request there was no error in failing to give ......
-
People v. Anderson
...People v. Farrell, 137 Mich. 127, 100 N.W. 264 (1904), it is essential to show the context of the admission. See also People v. Seaton, 235 Mich. 698, 209 N.W. 917 (1926); People v. McCrea, 303 Mich. 213, 253, 6 N.W.2d 489, 504 (1942); People v. Maglaya, 17 Mich.App. 379, 169 N.W.2d 530 (19......
- In re O'Brien