People v. Wessel, 131.
| Decision Date | 08 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 131.,131. |
| Citation | 239 N.W. 259,256 Mich. 72 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WESSEL. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Gogebic County; George O. Driscoll, Judge.
Louis Wessel was convicted of negligent homicide, and he appeals.
Reversed. Defendant remanded to custody of sheriff and new trial granted.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Thomas J. Landers, of Ironwood, for appellant.
Paul W. Voorhies, Atty. Gen., and William F. Pellow, Pros. Atty., of Bessemer, for the People.
Defendant, Louis Wessel, was convicted of negligent homicide. His appeal presents several questions, one of which will be discussed; prejudicial argument of the prosecuting attorney.
Defendant did not take the stand as a witness. The argument:
‘Mr. Pellow: * * * I stated in my opening statement that I would prove that Louis Wessel was under the influence of liquor, and he hasn't denied it.
‘Mr. Landers: Now I object to that argument and take exception to it, and ask the court to instruct the jury to disregard it.
‘Mr. Pellow: I am not commenting on the fact that he didn't take the stand, but I am--
‘The Court: Now, now, now, Mr. Pellow, that remark is entirely improper.
‘The Court: The jury will be very careful to disregard that remark entirely.’
The prosecutor called attention to defendant's failure to take the witness stand when he spoke of intoxication, saying, ‘And he hasn't denied it.’ And he referred to it explicitly in the remark immediately following, quoted above.
Early in the trial, the prosecutor asked if defendant was to be a witness in his own behalf. This was improper. The answer of defendant's counsel that defendant would be a witness is urged as justification or excuse for the argument. It has no connection with it, and no tendency to justify it.
The constitutional provision, section 16, art. 2, State Constitution, that one cannot be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself is rendered of little or no force if, by adverse criticism or argument, the exercise of the right is treated as a circumstance against him. The only practical way to avoid the burden of such criticism and argument, if permitted, is for defendant to take the stand, and thus he would be deprived of his constitutional right.
Such frustration of the constitutional right was long ago recognized by the Legislature, section 14218, Comp. Laws 1929: ‘That a defendant in any criminal case or proceeding shall only at his own request be deemed a competent witness, and his neglect to testify shall not create any presumption against him, nor shall the court permit any reference or comment to be made to or upon such neglect.’
In People v. Lay, 193 Mich. 17, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Russell
...contrary to the absolute right of silence. Griffin v. California (1965), 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106; People v. Wessel (1931), 256 Mich. 72, 239 N.W. 259. The prosecution concedes all this, but argues that since the defendant voluntarily took the witness stand he waived his ......
-
People v. Balog
...defendants' rights and are, as a consequence, proscribed in People v. Cahill, 147 Mich. 201, 110 N.W.. 520 (1907), or People v. Wessel, 256 Mich. 72, 239 N.W. 259 (1931). Defendants may have been harmed, but Michigan law holds that impermissible comments, like those at issue here, can be cu......
- Lalley v. Tuller Co. Appeal of Detroit Trust