People v. Tillard, No. 69

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtBOYLES
Citation318 Mich. 619,29 N.W.2d 111
Docket NumberJune Term, 1947.,No. 69
Decision Date13 October 1947
PartiesPEOPLE v. TILLARD.

318 Mich. 619
29 N.W.2d 111

PEOPLE
v.
TILLARD.

No. 69, June Term, 1947.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 13, 1947.


Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit; W. McKay Skillman, judge.

Proceeding by People of the State of Michigan against Leo Tillard on charge of armed robbery. From order denying motion to quash proceedings, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed, and case remanded.

Before the Entire Bench.

Eugene F. Black, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., of Lansing, and James N. McNally, Pros. Atty., and Robert Newton Smiley, and Herbert Burdick, Asst. Pros. Attys., all of Detroit, for the People.


Shapero & Shapero, Sidney L. Cohn, and Morton Fisher, all of Detroit, for defendant and appellant.

BOYLES, Justice.

The defendant was 16 years of age at the time he is alleged to have committed a felony. He was past 17 at the time when the present criminal proceeding was started against him in the recorder's court of Detroit. The only question for decision is whether the recorder's court has jurisdiction without a waiver from the juvenile division of the probate court. A motion to quash was made in recorder's court, denied, and on leave granted the defendant appeals from the order of denial.

On September 7, 1946, the defendant was arrested on a charge of robbery armed on that date, in the city of Detroit. He was then 16 years of age, and on September 8th was removed to the juvenile detention home. On September 11th a complaint was filed and a warrant issued. On September 23d the defendant became 17 years of age. On October 28th the defendant was arraigned in the recorder's court of Detroit on an information charging said felony, and his counsel moved to quash all proceedings against him on the ground that the recorder's court had no jurisdiction to try him without a waiver of jurisdiction from the juvenile court. On November 25th said motion to quash was granted. The defendant had not moved to have the proceeding transferred to the juvenile division and this was in legal effect a dismissal of the charge pending against him at that time. On the

[29 N.W.2d 112]

same date, November 25th, another complaint was filed in recorder's court charging that the defendant, on September 7, 1946, while armed with a dangerous weapon, assaulted one Edwin Sikorski and feloniously took $86 from his person. On this complaint a warrant was then issued. On December 9th an information was filed in recorder's court by the prosecuting attorney charging the defendant with the above offense, the defendant was then arraigned, stood mute, and a plea of not guilty was entered. On December 16th defendant's counsel filed a motion to quash this proceeding on the grounds (1) that the defendant had already been in jeopardy; (2) that he was under the age of 17 years when the offense was committed and no waiver had been obtained from the juvenile court; (3) that proceedings were commenced September 11th while the defendant was 16 years of age and that the recorder's court obtained no jurisdiction at that time or any time thereafter, the necessary waiver not having been procured. On January 9, 1947, the motion to quash was denied and on leave granted, this appeal is taken from the order of denial.

The first proceeding came to an end when the court, on November 25, 1946, granted the motion to quash all that proceeding. The defendant had not yet been placed in jeopardy and there was no bar to the subsequent proceeding.

‘The respondents were not in jeopardy until a jury of 12 men should be selected and sworn.’ People v. Barker, 60 Mich. 277, 290, 27 N.W.539, 543,1 Am.St.Rep. 501.

‘No proceeding in a criminal case can operate as a bar to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Mathers, In re, No. 38
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • December 2, 1963
    ...and powers of the juvenile division of the probate court are governed by chapter XIIa of the Probate Code, People v. Tillard, 318 Mich. 619, 29 N.W.2d 111, which provides that it shall be liberally construed to the end that the child will receive the [371 Mich. 547] care, guidance and contr......
  • People v. Gardner, Docket No. 9716
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • January 17, 1972
    ...the jury is impaneled and sworn. Jorn, supra, 400 U.S. at 479, [37 Mich.App. 526] 91 S.Ct. at 554, 27 L.Ed.2d at 553; People v. Tillard, 318 Mich. 619, 29 N.W.2d 111 (1947); People v. Henley, 26 Mich.App. 15, 182 N.W.2d 19 (1970). Once a defendant has been placed in jeopardy, he has a right......
  • People v. Thompson, Docket No. 73206
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 23, 1985
    ...that jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn. People v. Schepps, 231 Mich. 260, 203 N.W. 882 (1925); People v. Tillard, 318 Mich. 619; 29 N.W.2d 111 (1947). Thus, the judicial interpretation of Const. 1908, art. 2, Sec. 14, while consistent with federal double jeopardy law, o......
  • People v. Pribble, Docket No. 25738--40
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • November 9, 1976
    ...People v. Henley, 26 Mich.App. 15, 182 N.W.2d 19 (1970), People v. Schepps, 231 Mich. 260, 203 N.W. 882 (1925), People v. Tillard, 318 Mich. 619, 29 N.W.2d 111 (1947), People v. Anglin, 6 Mich.App. 666, 150 N.W.2d 532 (1967). See, also, United States v. Jorn, supra. In the instant case, the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Mathers, In re, No. 38
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • December 2, 1963
    ...and powers of the juvenile division of the probate court are governed by chapter XIIa of the Probate Code, People v. Tillard, 318 Mich. 619, 29 N.W.2d 111, which provides that it shall be liberally construed to the end that the child will receive the [371 Mich. 547] care, guidance and contr......
  • People v. Gardner, Docket No. 9716
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • January 17, 1972
    ...the jury is impaneled and sworn. Jorn, supra, 400 U.S. at 479, [37 Mich.App. 526] 91 S.Ct. at 554, 27 L.Ed.2d at 553; People v. Tillard, 318 Mich. 619, 29 N.W.2d 111 (1947); People v. Henley, 26 Mich.App. 15, 182 N.W.2d 19 (1970). Once a defendant has been placed in jeopardy, he has a right......
  • People v. Thompson, Docket No. 73206
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 23, 1985
    ...that jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn. People v. Schepps, 231 Mich. 260, 203 N.W. 882 (1925); People v. Tillard, 318 Mich. 619; 29 N.W.2d 111 (1947). Thus, the judicial interpretation of Const. 1908, art. 2, Sec. 14, while consistent with federal double jeopardy law, o......
  • People v. Pribble, Docket No. 25738--40
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • November 9, 1976
    ...People v. Henley, 26 Mich.App. 15, 182 N.W.2d 19 (1970), People v. Schepps, 231 Mich. 260, 203 N.W. 882 (1925), People v. Tillard, 318 Mich. 619, 29 N.W.2d 111 (1947), People v. Anglin, 6 Mich.App. 666, 150 N.W.2d 532 (1967). See, also, United States v. Jorn, supra. In the instant case, the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT