People v. Yeager

• Decision Date: 28 May 1897
• Citation: 113 Mich. 228,71 N.W. 491
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. YEAGER.

71 N.W. 491

113 Mich. 228

PEOPLE v. YEAGER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 28, 1897

Exception from recorder's court of Detroit; William W. Chapin Judge.

Joseph Yeager was convicted of an offense, and brings an exception. Reversed.

Allan H. Frazer, Pros. Atty., and Henry A. Mandell, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

George F. Robison, for respondent.

MONTGOMERY J.

The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, and the case is brought here for review on a single exception. After the jury were sworn, the court excluded from the court room all persons not legitimately interested in the case, but announced that any friend or person that was connected or related to or interested in the defendant himself was not to be excluded and, finally, in order to carry into effect the order, the court asked all the people to retire from the court room, and directed the officer in attendance to admit any who were relatives or friends of the defendant, and also permitted the representatives of the press to remain, the court saying "I don't propose to have the court room filled up with people here to embarrass witnesses in this case." The final announcement made by the court was: "I have told the officer not to let anybody in here who is not either a friend of the complaining witness or of the defendant. He will ascertain that fact as they apply for admission. All such people will be admitted, and the public will be kept out." And the court directed the officer to see that that rule was enforced. In making this order, the court acted under the authority of Local Act No. 408 of 1893, � 18, which provides: "Whenever it shall appear that, upon the trial of any cause, evidence of licentious, lascivious, degrading or peculiarly immoral acts or conduct, will probably be given, the judge presiding at such trial may, in his discretion, require and cause every person, except those necessarily in attendance thereof, to retire and absent himself or herself from the court room during such trial, or any portion thereof." Whether this statute is effective must depend upon whether the trial provided for may be deemed a public trial; for, if such a trial as is provided for by the statute is not a public trial, the act is plainly in conflict with section 28 of article 6 of the constitution which reads as follows: "In every criminal prosecution, the accused shall have the right of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury." This constitutional provision was...