People v. Welch
| Decision Date | 09 May 1890 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WELCH. |
Exceptions from recorder's court of Detroit.
George F. Robinson, for appellant.
J V. D. Willcox, Pros. Atty., and Edwin F Conely, for the People.
Welch was charged with the murder of one Morris Crawford on the evening of July 23, 1889, and was convicted of manslaughter. Two errors are alleged and relied upon here for a reversal. A brief statement of the facts are that on July 23, 1889, about 9 o'clock in the evening, Morris Crawford and Walter Mason were crossing Macomb street, on Beaubien street, in the city of Detroit, when two men, in a narrow seated side-bar buggy, drawn by a single horse, came along, and stopped on the cross-walk and obstructed the crossing. At first Crawford and Mason attempted to cross in front of the horse, but the men drove ahead, and stopped them. They then tried to cross behind the buggy, but the men pulled the horse back, and prevented them. They finally succeeded in crossing, when Crawford said they ought not to abuse the horse in that way. The men in the buggy then drove to the curb near where Crawford and Mason were, and one of the men said, "We will use you in the same way," and they both alighted and one attacked Mason and knocked him down, and the other attacked Crawford, knocking him against the fence, and then knocking him down, and beating him. He then went to the buggy, but returned again, saying, "Damn you, I will kill you," and, lifting his head from the ground, kicked him, hitting him in the jaw, and breaking his neck, and killing him. They then resumed their seats in the buggy, and drove away. Welch and one George Considine were arrested for the crime, and were identified by witnesses, among whom was Mason, as the assaulting parties, and Welch was identified by him and others as the person who assaulted Crawford. Welch was examined in the police court, and held for trial in the recorder's court. Upon the examination, Mason positively identified Welch as the person who attacked and struck Crawford.
Upon the trial in the recorder's court, the respondent, Welch, testified in his own behalf. On cross-examination, it was elicited that he had been arrested for burglary, larceny, and assault and battery, and on the evening of the alleged murder had been to the office of a morning newspaper, and left a challenge to fight a New York pugilist for $500. He had drank a great many times that day and evening, and had struck a by-stander in the face but a short time before the alleged affray. After the testimony was all put in, and before going to the jury, the prosecuting attorney stated to the court that the counsel for the people had determined that in their opinion the people had not made out a case of murder, and that all they should claim from the jury was a conviction of the defendant on a charge of manslaughter. The counsel for the people, Mr. E. F. Conely, then addressed the jury, and in the course of his argument, in commenting on the duty of a prosecuting officer, said: Defendant's counsel excepted to these remarks. In the further course of his argument, Mr. Conely said: to which remarks defendant's counsel excepted.
These two exceptions constitute the errors relied upon to reverse the cause. The record shows that the defendant's counsel requested the court, among other things, to charge the jury that they were not to consider the admission of the defendant that he had previously been arrested for other offenses as bearing in any way upon the question of his guilt or innocence of this charge; that they were only to consider that evidence as bearing upon the credibility of the defendant as a witness in his own behalf, which request the court gave in his charge. The record also states that "the defendant's counsel did not request the court to charge the jury that they must not be influenced by the opinion or belief of the prosecuting attorney, or coun...
To continue reading
Request your trial