People v. Sutherland

• Decision Date: 19 March 1895
• Citation: 62 N.W. 566,104 Mich. 468
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SUTHERLAND.

62 N.W. 566

104 Mich. 468

PEOPLE v. SUTHERLAND.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 19, 1895

Error to circuit court, Branch county; Noah P. Loveridge, Judge.

George Sutherland was convicted of assault to do great bodily harm less than the crime of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.

John S. Evans, for appellant.

Fred A Maynard, Atty. Gen., and Wm. H. Compton, Pros. Atty., for the People.

LONG J.

Respondent was convicted of an assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than the crime of murder. Upon the respondent's being arraigned, he refused to plead, and his counsel moved to quash the information, for the reasons: "That the papers filed in said case, purporting to be the return of the justice, have no certificate; that the respondent has had no examination according to the statute; that the justice had no jurisdiction of the cause, and that the circuit court has no jurisdiction; that the justice did not find probable cause to suspect the defendant guilty of any offense; that there is nothing to show that the evidence of the witnesses was reduced to writing, if there was any taken before the justice, or that the witnesses signed their testimony; nor that the respondent waived examination; and that the complaint does not show that there was a felonious assault made." These objections were overruled, and raise the first question in the case. The whole of the proceedings had before the justice do not appear to be in the record presented here, but from the part returned it appears that the justice did certify as follows: "It appears to me that said offense has been committed, and there is just cause to suspect the said defendant to be guilty thereof." The statute for the examination of offenders provides that: "If it shall appear that an offense not cognizable by a justice of the peace has been committed and if there is probable cause to believe the prisoner guilty thereof and the offense be bailable," etc., he shall take bail, and, if no bail be offered, commit the prisoner for trial. How. Ann. St. � 9471. This examination is not a judicial inquiry, in which the guilt or innocence of the party accused is finally decided upon, but an inquiry to ascertain whether the crime alleged has been committed, and whether there is reasonable ground to believe the party accused may have committed it. People v. Lynch, 29 Mich. 279. The certificate made by the justice was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the circuit court to try the cause. He does certify that it appeared that said offense had been committed, and that there was just cause to suspect the defendant to be guilty thereof. He used the word "suspect" and not "believe." This is sufficient, and a sufficient finding of probable cause. We are unable to say that the examination was not full and complete, as the full return of the examination is not in the record. The offense was set up in the complaint and warrant.

It is contended, however, that the justice had no jurisdiction of the cause. The complaint recites that: "On the 14th day of June, 1893, *** George Sutherland with force and arms, in and upon him, the said Wily Putnam, did make an assault, and him, the said Wily Putnam, did beat, bruise, wound, and ill treat, with intent then and there to do great bodily harm to him, the said Wily Putnam, less than the crime of murder." The warrant contained the same recital, and the contention is that no offense is stated within the term of the statute. How. Ann. St. � 9122a, provides "that any person who shall assault another with intent to do great bodily harm less than the crime of murder shall be punished," etc. It is contended that in leaving out the words "the crime of" no offense is stated. It does not appear from the record that this specific objection was made in the court below, and the information followed the same form. The court below evidently regarded the words as contained in the complaint, warrant, and information, for, in the charge, the court, in stating the offense, employed the words of the statute, and his attention was not called, even at that time, to this omission in the pleadings. If the objection had been made at that time, an amendment would have been...