People v. Welmer

• Citation: 110 Mich. 248,68 N.W. 141
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 21 July 1896
• Parties: PEOPLE v. WELMER ET AL.

68 N.W. 141

110 Mich. 248

PEOPLE v. WELMER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 21, 1896

Exceptions from circuit court, Hillsdale county; Victor H. Lane, Judge.

Fred Welmer and Warren Briggs were convicted of a violation of the local option law, and bring exceptions. Reversed.

Guy M Chester, Pros. Atty., for the People.

F. H Stone and Frankhauser Bros., for defendants.

LONG C.J.

This case comes to this court from the Hillsdale circuit on exception before sentence. The respondents were charged with the violation of the local option law of that county, and, on a trial before a jury, were convicted. The only point we need consider is the refusal of the court to allow to each respondent the number of peremptory challenges to jurors each would be entitled to if tried separately. After the defense had challenged five of the jurors peremptorily, and such jurors had been excused by the court, they then challenged one more juror peremptorily, and sought to excuse him from sitting in the case. This was overruled by the court, and the juror thus challenged was permitted to sit in the case. The parties were jointly charged. The statute provides that "In all civil cases each party may challenge peremptorily four jurors; and in all prosecutions in the name of the people of this state, not otherwise especially provided for, the attorney appearing for the people may challenge four jurors peremptorily, and the defendant may challenge five persons peremptorily." How. Ann. St. � 7607. The rule is criminal cases is well settled in this state as to the number of peremptory challenges to which of right each respondent is entitled. In Stroh v Hinchman, 37 Mich. 490, Mr. Justice Cooley, after speaking of the rule in civil cases, quotes from Sodousky v. McGee, 4 J. J. Marsh, 267, as follows: "In criminal cases, if several persons be tried on a joint indictment by the same jury, each has a separate and independent right to his challenges, whether peremptory or for cause, because, although the trial is joint in form, it is in substance and effect several. The verdict must be several. Each must be punished according to his own guilt and not according to that of another; and the punishment is individual and several, and not joint. There can be no contribution, no substitution." Section 2283b5, How. Ann. St., being section 16 of the local option law, provides for a maximum and minimum punishment. It is to be, for the...